Happy Website

Bishop Creek Drainage


Big Pine Creek Drainage


Here are the Rock Creek & Bishop Creek Drainages on a Map


Notice how cirques can lie within drainages . . .

That is the studies verbiage but again, not officially classified as such by the USGS on any topo map or definitive USGS reference.

SO, please answer my question regarding the Palisades Basin, Humphreys Basin, Evolution Basin etc.

The area depicted below btw is officially titled the Palisades Basin by the USGS (The Whitney Group Named it such on their original survey and it stands to this day):



And just found this jewel:

Bear Creek Spire, which lies at the head of the Rock Creek Basin....
Norman Clyde

Center Basin
Kaweah Basin
etc etc etc


No where does one find the term "drainage" on any USGS official documents for the Sierra Nevada, no where.

Chief, are you serious? Secor uses the term dozens upon dozens of times to refer to creek drainages in the High Sierra. Do you need page numbers? (3rf ed, p. 313, "upper Bear Creek drainage"). Is this not High Sierra enough for you? John Muir uses the term in his 1894 book, Mountains of California. I'd even wager the USGS uses the term all the time in their documents, but not on their topo maps.

Can you understand that drainage is a general term like "watershed" and "landmass" whereas "cirque, basin, box canyon, hanging valley and other terms are more specific? Just because one is more specific doesn't necessarily make it more appropriate.

Thanks for introducing Secor into this discussion Bob.

He actually specifically names this area in which BCS is located in as the Little Lakes Valley and the area above Morgan Pass towards Pine Creek as a basin. Not one mention of drainage any where. Chapt 10. When I submitted my beta for my routes on Ruby, he requested a specific description for which aspect, the east or north, they were located on within the Ruby Peak "cirque".

This was in fact the basis of a major discussion of minds some ten years ago when I was helping with two guide books for different areas. I was a by stander mind you. The end result, drainage is a generic term as you stated and the consensus is a more specific term should be used to appropriately define a specific area .

Semantics and just a thought for discussion.

The Chief wrote:Thanks for introducing Secor into this discussion Bob.

He actually specifically names this area in which BCS is located in as the Little Lakes Valley and the area above Morgan Pass towards Pine Creek as a basin. Not one mention of drainage any where. Chapt 10.

Chapter 10, page 337, 3rd edition (or p. 247 in the 1st edition): This pass [Peppermint] is used in combination with Spire Col to go from the Rock Creek drainage to the Pine Creek drainage.

Fair enough... Pg 307 in the 2nd edition as well.

Look at the paragraphs above (Pass Descriptions) and he uses "basin" four times to describe the Bear Lakes area in all four Bear Lakes Passes.

Semantics I agree.

Would make for an interesting "Album" of physical geographical terms and how they can be applied, appropriately or not.

What a hilarious discussion!

SCALE MATTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you understand scale, things become clear as a low tau day. Anyways,

Here's some reading for those struggling with physical landscape nomenclature and geometric concepts:

"The Drainage Basin as a Geomorphic Unit" Chapter 5 in Leopold et al.'s classic 1995 text Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology.

Hope this isnt too tough to swallow!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drainage_basin

Not the USGS!!!!!
http://www.usgs.gov/science/science.php?type=feature&term=331

In essence:
Geological basins (like the Palisade map) are composed of x=1...n drainage basins which may have cirques at certain boundaries. Think of J. Swift's poem on fleas...

"In vogue" synonymous terms come and go...

The Chief wrote:That is the studies verbiage but again, not officially classified as such by the USGS on any topo map or definitive USGS reference.

SO, please answer my question regarding the Palisades Basin, Humphreys Basin, Evolution Basin etc.

The area depicted below btw is officially titled the Palisades Basin by the USGS (The Whitney Group Named it such on their original survey and it stands to this day):

By your logic with the insistence on USGS map names being the only possible name for a geographic feature, Mt Shasta is only a mountain and not a volcano, because I can't seem to find any USGS maps showing a "Shasta Volcano". Same with Lassen Pk, Mt Rainier, Mt Hood, Mt Adams . . . These strange volcano things must just be 'studies verbiage'!

LOL

I think The Chief is losing it.

LOL @ the whole 'drainage' argument. Does it really matter if I said in every drainage, on every peak, in every cirque, etc etc? At that point I was not talking about the specific area in OP anyways...

On the other hand, the climb went great! We did it C2C on Saturday. Arete would be better if there was more 5.7-5.8, and less scrambling to the top. I thought crux was a bit soft for 5.8, but still very happy not to wear a pack on that pitch because getting off the ledge would be a bit rough with one. My partner actually fell 3-4 times on that pitch (with a pack) and he climbs circles around me in the gym. We were the only party on route. No crampons required, bypassed the snow on the loose crap left side (when you face down the cirque? ). No one but us on that arete on Saturday. On our way back saw a party of two camping at Dade lakes (as I remember) intending to climb the arete on Sun.

On Sunday we did the White mountain hike (I thought the oldest trees in the world were somewhere along the trail but the weren't), and than did the other hike to actually see bristlecone pines. Than car camped at some point along the road back to see a great sunrise the next day light up the range. On Monday did Crstal Crag's N arete on the drive back. Very nice weekend. Will post a few photos if any turned out...

Vitaliy M. wrote: I thought crux was a bit soft for 5.8 ...... My partner actually fell 3-4 times on that pitch (with a pack) and he climbs circles around me in the gym..

Calling the rating on the crux 5.8 "soft" ..... yet taking 3-4 falls on it? That makes absolutely no sense. Never heard of anyone ever taking a fall let alone 3-4 on that route then calling it "soft". Maybe your partner should stay in the gym where it's nice and controlled with no real drainage potentials.










Glad to hear that you all had fun and the route to yourselves.....

The Chief wrote:

Vitaliy M. wrote: I thought crux was a bit soft for 5.8 ...... My partner actually fell 3-4 times on that pitch (with a pack) and he climbs circles around me in the gym..

Calling the rating on the crux 5.8 "soft" ..... yet taking 3-4 falls on it? That makes absolutely no sense. Never heard of anyone ever taking a fall let alone 3-4 on that route then calling it "soft". Maybe your partner should stay in the gym where it's nice and controlled with no real drainage potentials.










Glad to hear that you all had fun and the route to yourselves.....

Sorry for a mess up in my post. I took the 5.10 dihedral (that was recommended by fossana earlier in this thread) variation for the crux pitch. It starts with a strenuous entrance into it with a stem. It was hard for him to go into that move with a pack. I meant to say I thought it was soft for a 5.10 because it wasn't too sustained, maybe a 5.9 above the first part (when I got on it I did not know this was the 5.10 variation. He led 2nd pitch and turned out took the 5.9 variation on that(not fingers but line that is left of the one in supertopo). The quality of both of these non standard pitches was GREAT! I will probably come back to do the standard pitches at some point to compare because I really liked this route, but really happy that we took these two variations instead.
5.10 variation on P5


5.9 variation on P2


Chief...I guess I am a total fk up in route finding. For some reason I decided to climb over the tunnel through as well


I had tons fun out there!!!

The Chief wrote:

All I can say is YAY!! for Felix, the wonderful wonderful cat!