Excitable Boy, I readily admit my few "Climbing" days are far behind me but given the Glaciers there in WA do not compare with either Oregon or Wyoming and the relief can be far less dramatic than lots of stuff in my neck of the woods I'm curious how you arrived at that determination? The Winds aside when I went up the Grand over 30 years ago I certainly thought the Black Ice Culoir was genuine, steep, icy, mixed, etc? Mt. Moran blew me a lot farther away than anything up around Seattle. Just curious how you arrived at the opinion you have.

Jackson is now arguably the wealthiest town on the planet with all the Wall Street Refuges and Trustafarians. I would guess there is an IT job there or in Teton Valley, ID that could be dynamite for you. NOLS in Lander needs computer people I would guess. I have no idea about tech jobs in Cody but I'm sure you realize it is a SERIOUS Ice climbing area that rivals if not exceeds anything mentioned thus far in some kennings.

If I were in your shoes, I'd be thinking either the San Juans or Montana. Hyalite is supposed to be awesome, just not as well published as areas in the Front Range or San Juans. Cody has more burly ice than virtually all of CO, but it still seems to fall off most people's radars. Also think about what you'll be doing when the ice isn't there. Lots of good rock and mt. biking in the San Juans; Bozeman area too.

Edit: http://montanaice.com/

I'm sure that any of your potential destinations will be great. But I sure do love living in Grand Junction. I moved here on a whim four years ago and I've not regretted it. The variety of places that can be reached from here is incredibly diverse and relatively short in distance.

Rough drive times from Grand Junction:

2 hours to Ouray/start of San Juan Range
Just under 2 hours to Moab/Arches/Canyonlands National Park
0-15 minutes to Colorado National Monument
15-45 minutes to Unaweep Canyon (I think this place is highly underrated)
About an hour to Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park
45 minutes to Grand Mesa
About 2 hours to Aspen/Elk/West Elk Ranges
About 2.5 hours to beginning of Gore/Sawatch Ranges

The list goes on and on....and those are destinations that skip everything in between, which is usually pretty awesome. There are drawbacks however, the community is predominated by older folks...not that this is bad....it just makes it less socially interesting for the younger crowd.

Doublecabin wrote:the Glaciers there in WA do not compare with either Oregon or Wyoming and the relief can be far less dramatic than lots of stuff in my neck of the woods I'm curious how you arrived at that determination? I went up the Grand over 30 years ago I certainly thought the Black Ice Culoir was genuine, steep, icy, mixed, etc? Mt. Moran blew me a lot farther away than anything up around Seattle.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Tetons. It is certainly a classic, accessible, historical range with lots of good rock climbing and a few disappearing alpine ice routes but the lack of expansive glaciers and extensive alpine ice (yes there is some, but not much) disqualifies it as a true 'Alpine Range' in mould of the European Alps IMHO. I personally call the Tetons 'Alpine Lite'. In the Cascades the Tetons would be referred to as 'alpine cragging'.

Furthermore, your assertion that the relief in Washington is less dramatic than the Tetons is simply not true. For example, the Stuart Range/Enchantments alone are as extensive as the Tetons and the relief of the north side of Mt Stuart is equal to anything on the Grand. While the Grand is 13k and change, Jenny Lake is at 7k. That is the same relief as Stuart from any trailhead. And no where in the continental US has the relief that Mt Rainier has. The Cascades have 5,000 ft, technical, north faces that folks outside the Cascades have never heard of.

I don't know what you mean by 'Mt. Moran blew me a lot farther away than anything up around Seattle' but I am guessing you felt that it was harder or more comitting than anything you climbed in Washington? I would buy that. Much of the climbing in Washington is not nearly as accessible as the Tetons so it makes sense that a visiting climber would hit only the road side attractions.

I'm not trying to say that the Cascades are better than the Tetons, Winds, Montana Rockies, Colorado, or Sierras. There is a lot to be said for mountain ranges with decent weather, easy approaches, no glaciers to hassle with, reliable, accessible water ice, and 14k summits you can drive to. After 20 years I am getting a little tired of having to work so hard to climb. I'd be very happy to retire to CO, WY, or CA and live out my old age among friendly hills.

having lived in WA and now CO...

while the cascades may be the best place in the lower 48 for proper alpine climbing (glaciers, long routes, long approaches), I dont think they are the best place to live for an aspiring alpinist with aspirations for technical climbing in the greater ranges. The cascades pack legitimate adventure, but the weather will definitely put a damper on a lot of activities, and the often overly abundant snow fall means technical mixed routes have limited seasons (a few weeks a year). Rock, ice and mixed climbing are the foundation of elite alpinism. While these skills can be learned in WA, a place like CO is probably much better suited.

p.s. There have been great alpinists born in all parts of the country, so it probably isnt fair to say look at so-and-so...

The san juans would be great for pure ice, but for rock, alpine mixed terrain and great weather, I think the CO front range will be hard to beat. Bozeman or elsewhere in MT would also be an awesome choice.

jkillgore wrote:having lived in WA and now CO...

while the cascades may be the best place in the lower 48 for proper alpine climbing (glaciers, long routes, long approaches), I dont think they are the best place to live for an aspiring alpinist with aspirations for technical climbing in the greater ranges. The cascades pack legitimate adventure, but the weather will definitely put a damper on a lot of activities, and the often overly abundant snow fall means technical mixed routes have limited seasons (a few weeks a year). Rock, ice and mixed climbing are the foundation of elite alpinism. While these skills can be learned in WA, a place like CO is probably much better suited.

p.s. There have been great alpinists born in all parts of the country, so it probably isnt fair to say look at so-and-so...

The san juans would be great for pure ice, but for rock, alpine mixed terrain and great weather, I think the CO front range will be hard to beat. Bozeman or elsewhere in MT would also be an awesome choice.

I know you so I have a lot of respect your opinon. I can understand the argument that Colorado has more accessible tehnical ice and better weather so is therefore more conducive to learning to be an alpinist.

More on Cody. Ice looks awesome, though not sure about the social aspects.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum ... r-climbing

What Colin Haley has to say about it:

"I was fortunate to grow up in Washington State, which has, in my opinion, the only real alpine climbing in the Lower 48."
http://www.sportiva.com/live/page.php?id=48&at=24

If your primary interest is ice, I would recommend you avoid the Front Range of Colorado (Boulder, Denver, Colorado Springs etc.). True, there's ice here, but much of what's worth doing can be climbed in one or at most two years of good conditions, there's not a ton of multi-pitch ice (vs. alpine mixed), and there are many hundreds if not thousands of climbers chasing what little ice we have. I've spent much of the past two ice seasons driving to SW Colorado and Cody, WY. OTOH, there is a lot of good alpine climbing of all types in Rocky Mountain National Park. The advice regarding Canada is a good one if you can get the appropriate visa to live/work up there. MUCH more multi-pitch ice than most other places and tons of awesome alpine climbing in spring, summer, fall and even winter (if you're an uber-hard-man). Bozeman sounds like a good option for you though I don't know as much about that area (yet).

KevinCraig wrote:there is a lot of good alpine climbing of all types in Rocky Mountain National Park.

It is this belief that gets so many climbers from Colorado into trouble when they climb in the Cascades. They are under the mistaken impression that Colorado or has alpine climbing so when they are confronted by the real deal in the Cascades they get shut down. I remember one fellow from Colorado came out to do Ptarmigan Ridge on Rainier, took one look at it and went home.

ExcitableBoy wrote:

KevinCraig wrote:there is a lot of good alpine climbing of all types in Rocky Mountain National Park.

It is this belief that gets so many climbers from Colorado into trouble when they climb in the Cascades. They are under the mistaken impression that Colorado or has alpine climbing so when they are confronted by the real deal in the Cascades they get shut down. I remember one fellow from Colorado came out to do Ptarmigan Ridge on Rainier, took one look at it and went home.

Yep, I sure did. I said good alpine climbing, not heinous choss-pile climbing. Best you be familiar with my entire resume' and all the reasons for the decision before making such judgments. To be fair though, you are correct that Colorado doesn't have real glaciers so that aspect of alpine climbing can't be had here.

KevinCraig wrote:

ExcitableBoy wrote:

KevinCraig wrote:there is a lot of good alpine climbing of all types in Rocky Mountain National Park.

It is this belief that gets so many climbers from Colorado into trouble when they climb in the Cascades. They are under the mistaken impression that Colorado or has alpine climbing so when they are confronted by the real deal in the Cascades they get shut down. I remember one fellow from Colorado came out to do Ptarmigan Ridge on Rainier, took one look at it and went home.

Yep, I sure did. I said good alpine climbing, not heinous choss-pile climbing. Best you be familiar with my entire resume' and all the reasons for the decision before making such judgments. To be fair though, you are correct that Colorado doesn't have real glaciers so that aspect of alpine climbing can't be had here.

Oh my, how the ego's can indeed fly.

I too went to Rainier, took one look, turned around and immediately left.... far too many humans in one spot for my liking.




And they call that climbing.