MoapaPk wrote:

Muddeer wrote:
And, you are remembering wrong: I have never applied "F-bomb" or other obscenities to other people's OPINIONS.

After a few people expressed their like of registers, you call the registers "F*CKIN' TRASH". If you don't see that as denigrating their opinions, then you have an unusual mindset.

What you call "trolling" is my attempt to get you to examine your own inconsistency. You can't champion environmental causes, yet leave all the heavy lifting to other people. It doesn't matter one bit if you have all the right PC opinions, if you don't practice them.

Actually, only one expressed his like of registers before my post. Read my post again; it was not directed to his post or his opinion: only answering the OP's request for my opinion.

Although I don't consider myself a champion of environmental causes (just a sympathizer), and this thread isn't about that, I have to ask, what are my "inconsistency" on the subject? Apparently you are so smart, that you can find these inconsistencies without evening knowing me. Actually, I think I'm a pretty considerate person when it comes to the environment. I've averaged less than 8000 miles of total driving per year the last 16 years, even less the last five. Yes, I used a mule team to transport gear to the base camp of Aconcagua, like most people who climb it (you are so sharp to figure that out from my previous posts! I guess a Ph.D from MIT does mean something). But hundreds, if not thousands, of mule teams have used and will be using that same trail over the years: I don't feel too bad about it. And yes, I do go into the mountains, leaving footprints and scaring the animals. Apparently some people who climb somehow don't.

Humm, geez, I wonder why I thought you were trolling....

Is this a burial mound??!!

MikeTX wrote:

RickandRhonda wrote:Did someone say cairn?



This cairn leans just a little, but is bombproof. Over 7 feet tall and nearly three feet in diameter, this is the largest cairn I have ever seen.

not to be the obnoxious texan or anything.

That's more like a tower:


San Pedro (1425 m)

I can see the fun of finding summit registers on seldom climbed peaks. It is fun finding names that you recognize. What annoyed me was climbing Mount Washington for the first time via the Ammonoosuc Trail and finding a bus unloading passengers at the top, a cog rail train, gift shop, and a coffee shop.

Mount Whitney Starbucks

I was almost shot in the head for detroying a cairn about 10-15 years ago. The men who were going to shoot me were indians who were on-duty as National Park rangers. Apparently the cairn that I destroyed was 1,000 years old and had significant meaning to the local indians. They came up on me as I was dismantling the cairn and pulled a gun on me. Let me tell you, if you've never had angry indians put a gun to your head out in the middle of nowhere, count your blessings. I almost pissed myself.

I learned my lesson. Make sure the coast is clear before you destroy a cairn.

Mount Whitney's hut is not the only on a 4000er:

http://www.caivarallo.it/rifugi_cai_var ... ifugio.php

Diego Sahagún wrote:Mount Whitney's hut is not the only on a 4000er:

http://www.caivarallo.it/rifugi_cai_var ... ifugio.php

There are certain things that I know I'll never change, like the hut on top of Mount Whitney.

But for all of those pesky cairns and ducks everywhere else:

FEAR ME, FOR THEY CALL ME THE DESTROYER.

I apologize and wish to clarify, way too late now, that by bringing up "Cairns and Registers," I meant summit cairns.

I have no real problem with cairned routes when the way is complicated or dangerous or when there is a need to establish one path out of concerns for the environment (as in the desert or across tundra). When the route is obvious and/or the cairns are pointless or misleading, though, I am all for tearing them down and have done so myself several times.

I have also made my own cairns at times to mark an off-trail route that I worried I might have trouble finding again, but I have dismantled them on the way back.

Cairns on the summit? I still don't see why unless the highpoint is vague.

Bob Sihler wrote:I apologize and wish to clarify, way too late now, that by bringing up "Cairns and Registers," I meant summit cairns.

I have no real problem with cairned routes when the way is complicated or dangerous or when there is a need to establish one path out of concerns for the environment (as in the desert or across tundra). When the route is obvious and/or the cairns are pointless or misleading, though, I am all for tearing them down and have done so myself several times.

I have also made my own cairns at times to mark an off-trail route that I worried I might have trouble finding again, but I have dismantled them on the way back.

Cairns on the summit? I still don't see why unless the highpoint is vague.

THE DESTROYER DOESN'T CARE WHETHER THE CAIRNS ARE ON THE SUMMIT OR ON THE TRAIL, THEY WILL ALL BE DESTROYED.

Day Hiker wrote:What is the highest point in the contiguous United States? It's the stupid metal cap on the chimney on the Smithsonian Hut on Mount Whitney. This fact is rather irritating. Highpoints should be natural features.

Not true. It would probably have been dismantled by eco-terrorists if it were.

Bob Sihler wrote:Cairns on the summit? I still don't see why unless the highpoint is vague.

To keep the snow and rain off the register!

Sheesh, Bob....

Sierra Ledge Rat wrote:

Bob Sihler wrote:I apologize and wish to clarify, way too late now, that by bringing up "Cairns and Registers," I meant summit cairns.

I have no real problem with cairned routes when the way is complicated or dangerous or when there is a need to establish one path out of concerns for the environment (as in the desert or across tundra). When the route is obvious and/or the cairns are pointless or misleading, though, I am all for tearing them down and have done so myself several times.

I have also made my own cairns at times to mark an off-trail route that I worried I might have trouble finding again, but I have dismantled them on the way back.

Cairns on the summit? I still don't see why unless the highpoint is vague.

THE DESTROYER DOESN'T CARE WHETHER THE CAIRNS ARE ON THE SUMMIT OR ON THE TRAIL, THEY WILL ALL BE DESTROYED.

Go for it!

Sierra Ledge Rat wrote:There are certain things that I know I'll never change, like the hut on top of Mount Whitney.

Hey, never give up. Someday, it may change.

My personal project is the Glen Canyon Dam.

Never give up.

Bob Burd wrote:

Day Hiker wrote:What is the highest point in the contiguous United States? It's the stupid metal cap on the chimney on the Smithsonian Hut on Mount Whitney. This fact is rather irritating. Highpoints should be natural features.

Not true. It would probably have been dismantled by eco-terrorists if it were.

Hey, Bob. It looks like your camera angle is a result of the added height of your body from standing while you took the photo. Here is a photo taken from a little closer to the summit rocks, from a seated position:



The photo may still not be absolute proof, but in my photo, I think my camera's perspective is still not down to the level of the highest rock. I'm pretty sure that when the viewer is actually on the summit area, a visual inspection of the rocks versus the hut shows the hut chimney to win by a few feet. I know I have deliberately made the visual comparison while up there on several different occasions, but now I'm going to have to check yet one more time, the next time I go!

(Or I will ask Rick Kent to check, since winter is coming, and he will obviously be there again before me!)

Looks like you could be right. If proven so, I may have to smack down the smokestack on my next visit (which, unlike Rick, isn't likely to be anytime soon). Or maybe I'll contract Sean to do it - if he exits via the Shepherd Pass Trail again, he'll throw the Park Service off his scent.