South San Juan Range, Colorado Comments
[ Post a Comment ]
|Thanks John. I didn't have an appreciation for the ruggedness of this area before.|
|Posted May 21, 2008 6:42 pm|
|John Kirk||Re: Nice work|
There are a lot of potentially challenging peaks I've yet to try there that I'm looking forward to puzzling out. Within the heart of the area there is definitely a wilderness feel.
|Posted May 21, 2008 9:30 pm|
|Bob Sihler||Another great effort|
|Nice to see this unsung area of the San Juans get such nice treatment.|
|Posted May 22, 2008 12:55 pm|
|John Kirk||Re: Another great effort|
|Posted May 22, 2008 1:51 pm|
|Great page! Thanks for submitting.|
|Posted May 22, 2008 1:28 pm|
|John Kirk||Re: Wow!|
|Thanks - I like that shot of Tobacco Lake - hope this gives it more exposure...|
|Posted May 22, 2008 1:50 pm|
|Aaron Johnson||Beautiful Job|
|Outstanding, John! Thank you!|
|Posted May 22, 2008 6:08 pm|
|A very beautiful page indeed, but I can't help feeling like it would benefit from a little fleshing out. The most notable absence is the whole grizzly question; whether you believe they're there or not, it's still fascinating. Also, it would certainly be worth noting which peaks are on Banded Peak Ranch (Tierra Amarilla Land Grant) and are therefore technically off limits. |
I'm also a little surprised at your choice not to include the Chalk Mountains, Sure, they're a subrange, but a very small one and I doubt they'll get they're own page anytime soon. Seems like the South San Juans page is probably the best home for them on SP.
Other small things you might add: some mention of the Continental Divide Trail; maybe the Cumbres & Toltec Railroad; and the Summitville Mine environmental disaster (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1995/ofr-95-0023/summit.htm). Also, you link to national forest trails only covers the west side; east side trails are listed here: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/riogrande/recreation/trails/
Not trying to dump on you by any means; it's a beautiful page and is making me itch to get up there. But it could be even better.
|Posted May 22, 2008 7:27 pm|
|John Kirk||Re: Nice, but...|
|Thanks - I agree with most of your ideas and will incorporate soon. Whether peaks are within private boundaries or not doesn't change their geology but I get what you're saying about mentioning the ranch.|
|Posted May 23, 2008 1:22 am|
|jfrishmanIII||Re: Nice, but...|
|Nice additions, they help flesh out the fascination of the area. Certainly the peaks on the Ranch are no less fascinating, and no less a part of the range for their private status. Just don't want anyone inadvertantly getting in trouble (or pointing the finger at this web site).|
|Posted May 23, 2008 2:28 pm|
|I really don't know where to begin. The pictures are out of this world, the description and text flow & read quite well and the beta contained therein is outstanding. |
This is a gem of an SP page, John.
Good work indeed!
|Posted May 22, 2008 11:56 pm|