Page 3 of 5
Posted:
Mon May 03, 2010 7:44 pmby Jakester
billisfree wrote:Jakester... I made NO comments about Mt. Rainier.
I've only climbed to Camp Muir. And I'm not qualified to comment on Rainier.
*facepalm*
billisfree wrote:I suggest you try Colorado. They have 75 peaks over 14,000 ft. It's closer to Texas and most of these peaks are scrambles. That will give you a taste for what it's like to climb 3K to 5K ft in a day. It might suprise you, but Mt Rainier is only 14,400, so there's really nothing special.
If you want snow and glacier experience - try Mt. Shasha. It's a safe mountain for learning cramponing and snow camping.
Mt Rainier is heavily crevassed and I suggest climbing a few lesser peaks beforehand.
I took a couple of climbing classes... but in the end, I realize one could easily teach themselves this stuff by reading a few good books. I've climbed Mt Adams with all my fancy equipment... then watched people climb it with nothing more than sweathers and tennis shoes. Oh well...
One thing stands out - DO try to climb with buddy or where others are nearby.
Posted:
Mon May 03, 2010 7:45 pmby dskoon
+ 1. There ya go. . .
Posted:
Mon May 03, 2010 7:46 pmby billisfree
OK, Jakester... I changed it. Happy?
Posted:
Mon May 03, 2010 7:51 pmby dskoon
mrchad9 wrote:For blueshade and others that might ramble on about Shasta not being dangerous... from the NFS in 2008:
11/28 The biggest event of the season was a climbing fatality in Avalanche Gulch on November 28. A climber fell and was unable to self arrest. She slid and tumbled for around 1000 vertical feet. Due to thin snow, several rocks were protruding from the hard and smooth surface. She was not wearing a helmet and hit rocks, dying from head trauma. Other climbers assisted and the body was flown out by the CHP helicopter from Helen Lake, 10,400 ft.
6/21-24 A large and extended search began on 6/22 for 2 climbers attempting a 1 day climb up Avalanche Gulch. They climbed into a massive lightning storm with high winds and descended the Whitney glacier. With several helicopters, Siskiyou County SAR team members and USFS Climbing Rangers a massive search took place 24 hours a day until the lost climbers arrived at the Roseburg Mill in Weed in the early hours of 6/24. They were dehydrated and suffered only minor injuries.
Shasta accidents are available here:
http://www.shastaavalanche.org/advisories/advisories/accidentsShasta and Rainier are a world apart from CO 14ers... Unless you climb the CO ones in winter. How many glaciers does CO have? How high are their mountains, measured from the TH?
+1. Ample enough evidence right there. . .
Posted:
Mon May 03, 2010 7:53 pmby Jakester
billisfree wrote:OK, Jakester... I changed it. Happy?
Not really. I'm in full-on internet-tough-guy mode. Plus it's Monday. Let's get the thread back on track by giving out bad advice to novices. Your turn.
Posted:
Mon May 03, 2010 7:57 pmby blueshade
What a bunch of whiners... First, I never said that Shasta is not dangerous, I said that it wasn't difficult. The summer I was there the area had very consistent weather. Regardless, you have to know your own abilities and limits while preparing for the risks. There are so many people out there that say they like to hike and climb and have no idea what they are doing or getting themselves into. Only you can know what your abilities and risk tolerance are and what gear is appropriate for you and the weather. You don't need to pack the kitchen sink on every trip.
Posted:
Mon May 03, 2010 8:01 pmby dskoon
[quote="blueshade"]What a bunch of whiners... First, I never said that Shasta is not dangerous, I said that it wasn't difficult.
That's a very general statement, considering the Op is new to mountaineering.
It's all relative. . .
Posted:
Mon May 03, 2010 8:01 pmby MoapaPk
dskoon wrote:mrchad9 wrote:For blueshade and others that might ramble on about Shasta not being dangerous... from the NFS in 2008:
...
Shasta and Rainier are a world apart from CO 14ers... Unless you climb the CO ones in winter. How many glaciers does CO have? How high are their mountains, measured from the TH?
+1. Ample enough evidence right there. . .
You might look into the number of deaths on Maroon Bells in CO (or even Long's Peak).
Conditions can change rapidly on mountains, and pretty much any mountain can go from benign to dangerous quickly. In nice consolidated but soft snow, a glissade on a 40 degree slope may be pleasant and controlled; but if the snow freezes up again...
Coming down Longs in nice weather is a bit different from a descent in sleet.
Posted:
Mon May 03, 2010 8:05 pmby dskoon
MoapaPk wrote:dskoon wrote:mrchad9 wrote:For blueshade and others that might ramble on about Shasta not being dangerous... from the NFS in 2008:
...
Shasta and Rainier are a world apart from CO 14ers... Unless you climb the CO ones in winter. How many glaciers does CO have? How high are their mountains, measured from the TH?
+1. Ample enough evidence right there. . .
You might look into the number of deaths on Maroon Bells in CO (or even Long's Peak).
Conditions can change rapidly on mountains, and pretty much any mountain can go from benign to dangerous quickly. In nice consolidated but soft snow, a glissade on a 40 degree slope may be pleasant and controlled; but if the snow freezes up again...
Coming down Longs in nice weather is a bit different from a descent in sleet.
Yeah, Moapapk,
I wasn't or didn't intend to agree with the part of comparing Shasta, etc. to Colorado 14ers, only to the bit about the deaths, etc. on Shasta, and not to take it lightly.
I'm sure plenty have died in the mountains of Colorado as well. . . Mountains are mountains. . .
Posted:
Mon May 03, 2010 8:07 pmby mrchad9
blueshade wrote:Shasta is not a hard mountain at all, somewhat strenuous (7000' gain) but not dangerous. If you wait until later in the year you can do it in sneakers if you are careful, crampons if you want to be safer. Easily finished as a day-hike if you move quickly.
blueshade wrote:What a bunch of whiners... First, I never said that Shasta is not dangerous, I said that it wasn't difficult.
Which blueshade does everyone believe?
Posted:
Mon May 03, 2010 8:13 pmby dskoon
mrchad9 wrote:blueshade wrote:Shasta is not a hard mountain at all, somewhat strenuous (7000' gain) but not dangerous. If you wait until later in the year you can do it in sneakers if you are careful, crampons if you want to be safer. Easily finished as a day-hike if you move quickly.
blueshade wrote:What a bunch of whiners... First, I never said that Shasta is not dangerous, I said that it wasn't difficult.
Which blueshade does everyone believe?
Uh, neither. . .
Posted:
Mon May 03, 2010 8:13 pmby billisfree
Well, Jakester... snow and weather conditions vary over time.
I always go prepared... extra clothing, crampons and ice axe. I'm not afraid to turn around if conditions are too dangerous for my equipment and abilities.
Last year I climbed Mt. Hood only to discover icy conditions near the top. I wasn't feeling too good, so I just stood and watched the show. Five climbers individually climbed the last 600 feet over 40-45 degree slopes and made it to the top and back down. Yet a few minutes later, a guided rope team tried - and aborted. A few minutes later another solo climber. using just ski poles, tried and slipped. I'm not sure if he wore crampons. He definitly had no helmet. He slid down 400 feet and got pretty bruised up, but was able to walk out on his own.
A week later, I soloed Mt Hood. Next to me was a guided rope team. Others soloed just fine.
IMHO, Mt Hood is more dangerous than than Shasha or Adams. BUT Adams or Shasha can be more dangerous - GIVEN THE RIGHT CONDITIONS.
Posted:
Mon May 03, 2010 8:15 pmby mrchad9
dskoon wrote:MoapaPk wrote:dskoon wrote:mrchad9 wrote:For blueshade and others that might ramble on about Shasta not being dangerous... from the NFS in 2008:
...
Shasta and Rainier are a world apart from CO 14ers... Unless you climb the CO ones in winter. How many glaciers does CO have? How high are their mountains, measured from the TH?
+1. Ample enough evidence right there. . .
You might look into the number of deaths on Maroon Bells in CO (or even Long's Peak).
Conditions can change rapidly on mountains, and pretty much any mountain can go from benign to dangerous quickly. In nice consolidated but soft snow, a glissade on a 40 degree slope may be pleasant and controlled; but if the snow freezes up again...
Coming down Longs in nice weather is a bit different from a descent in sleet.
Yeah, Moapapk,
I wasn't or didn't intend to agree with the part of comparing Shasta, etc. to Colorado 14ers, only to the bit about the deaths, etc. on Shasta, and not to take it lightly.
I'm sure plenty have died in the mountains of Colorado as well. . . Mountains are mountains. . .
I did not intend to insinuate that CO mountains are not dangerous... If it was interpreted that way it was a misunderstanding. That was intended to be a seperate statement- I probably could have posted it in another post.
My position is that Shasta and Rainier are unique, at least in part due to the glacier and snow present, when compared to all the CO 14ers. So they require a different set of skills. So Bills statement that Rainier is "nothing special" didn't make sense, which he has since agreed. I wasn't meaning to say they are unique simply due to a danger level.
Posted:
Mon May 03, 2010 8:33 pmby billisfree
MrChad: I had to modify my comments and remove the "nothing special".
Sorry... poor choice of words on my part.
What I really meant to imply... Mt Rainier wasn't a whole lot higher in altitude
than the Colorado mtns.
Hope everyone's happy now.
Posted:
Mon May 03, 2010 8:56 pmby Luciano136
Bottom line, don't do Rainier as your first mountain. You might be ok but you could also be miserable and not wanting to ever do something like it again.
Get some basic skills and go out in the snow on a few smaller peaks first. No need to run before you can walk.