Big sigh. It's not cheap at all. But it's where I live, so at least I'm used to it. Ringing endorsement, eh?

mvs wrote:Big sigh. It's not cheap at all. But it's where I live, so at least I'm used to it. Ringing endorsement, eh?

Michael! Your argument was starting to work until you said this. So I suppose you should rephrase it to say "The Alps are the Best for Rich People".

goldenhopper wrote:The problem with the Alps is that you're never more than about 500 meters from a chalet or a 5 star hotel.

What do you know about the Alps, man ? What are you talking about ? I think you have a problem, not only with the Alps.

It isn´t cheap indeed, especially Switzerland. But salaries are higher too for most people here. If you are at the bottom of the salary scale although you are just the same working 40 hours a week it does gets tough. The so-called working poor. So you gotta be creative: sleep outside or in hut for less than 20 euro per night, pack your own food, take a mitfahrt, ask for a ride, dont take any cable cars halfway up the mountain and if willing don´t drink any alcohol for a couple of days It keeps your monthly climbing bill down anywhere in the world, and especially in the Alps.

Now were talking my kind of camping. 20 euros a night would still be a lot of money by my standards, so I would most certainly pick the tent camping style. After all it is the way of the alpinist. And I thought America was expensive!

I gotta say it: camping in most parts is not allowed, bivying is. That being said: during my trip in the SW of the US I rented a car to get to some peaks and National Parks. Couldn't really do it using public transportation, which you can in the Alps but its good bus and train system.

Diego Sahagún wrote:No, I wasn't thinking on the Pyrenees Eric. There are many places in the world that I don't know and they could be better than The Alps. Who knows...

Humour, Diego, humour
On the other hand I'm sure you wouldn't contradict the Spanish Pyrenees aren't nice

Tonka wrote:As the saying goes, France would be really cool if it weren't for the French

I somehow agree as I tend sometimes to be disappointed by the inhabitants of my country of origin, however I wish more visitors headed somewhere else than Paris, Chamonix or the Mont Saint Michel to make themselves a fair opinion...

Josh Lewis wrote:So I suppose you should rephrase it to say "The Alps are the Best for Rich People".

Not always. Go to the Alps of Slovenia. Budgetly speaking, coming from Poland we felt at home. Since you also avoid 20E/person campsites like we do, you would also love it. Michael, ever been there ? Also nice and stunning rock-climbing. But thanks to Borut everyone is aware of it on SP

macintosh wrote:What do you know about the Alps, man ? What are you talking about ? I think you have a problem, not only with the Alps.

He's right Well, not all areas fortunately but coming from the Pyrenees, the Alps provide such impression, sorry Or Maybe there also lots of hotels in the Vosges and Romania

ncst wrote:I gotta say it: camping in most parts is not allowed, bivying is. That being said: during my trip in the SW of the US I rented a car to get to some peaks and National Parks. Couldn't really do it using public transportation, which you can in the Alps but its good bus and train system.

Bivying should be fine with Josh. Climbers don't really "camp" anyway...it's more about rolling out your bivy sack on a ridge somewhere, and nobody will bother you in the Alps about that (plus you get the music from the 5 star hotel 150 meters away! )

Overall if you stay at a mountain club hut I think the accomodation is very reasonable. I'm happy to pay 10 or 20 euros to save carrying a tent, pad and sleeping bag. The food is where it adds up...probably worthwhile to bring a stove and go eat outside in the sunset, come back to the hut to sleep. I'll be doing more of that in the future I think. (bring my own Tequila Blanco for a nightcap too).

Look, if you want to see the alps as crowded, expensive and overall way too much hassle that is fine, I have complete sympathy with that point of view as I often felt that way myself. But I've been here 5 years now and learned to revel in the amazing variety of mountain terrain packed into a small area.

About Slovenia, I'm really impressed with the culture of trad climbing there, as Borut showed me on a short visit last April. It's actually within reach for a weekend trip and I'm trying to get back. However, since they went on the Euro an evening out at a restaurant costs just as much as Munich, if not Switzerland, which is expensive enough!

The problem with the Alps is that you're never more than about 500 meters from a chalet or a 5 star hotel.

Or you could say, that the great thing with the Alps is that you're never more than about 500 meters from a chalet or a 5 star hotel. And often just a few km from a cable car for that case.
Actually the easy access to alpine peaks is part of what I find fascinating about the Alps. In a day you can climb what takes several days in other mountain ranges.

And the crowding is not that big a problem. Just avoid the most popular peaks like Mt. Blanc, and you will often be alone or see just a few people even in high season. Anyways, if you want crowds and expensive accomodation, just go to Yosemite and climb Half Dome

Diego and Josh- give it a rest for cryin' out loud. Was just his opinion after his own great discovery and climb. Great photos mvs.

visentin wrote:

Diego Sahagún wrote:No, I wasn't thinking on the Pyrenees Eric. There are many places in the world that I don't know and they could be better than The Alps. Who knows...

Humour, Diego, humour
On the other hand I'm sure you wouldn't contradict the Spanish Pyrenees aren't nice

No, I wouldn't contradict that. Anyway, I think that The Alps are nicer than our Pyrenees. I love The Alps but I think there are some ranges in the world more beautiful (and cheaper) than The Alps.

Marmaduke, they have their own opinion and I'm only giving mine, that's all

I agree with Michael
I've been climbing (in the past) and hiking (still now) in almost all the Italian valleys of the Alps, from Val Maira (Cozie Alps) to Cortina basin (Eastern Dolomites) .. and, of course, in many Swiss and French ones
I think that nowhere else in the world we can find such variety of kind of summits, rocks, nature etc. in a so short (~600 kw wide) range.
Italy is the only nation that "has" all the Alps, France, Switzerland, Austria and Slovenia are in share, each having only a small part of the range.
As for cheap or expensive : there are some really expensive sites : Chamonix - Zermatt - Sainkt Moritz - Cortina ... but they are expensive only for tourists and hikers that are looking to have the least efforts and rthe most commodities, in my 2000+ trips/climbs in the Alps the highest costs I had to pay was the Mont Blanc tunnel (I never tried to have a Bismark steak or a Fiorentina in Regina Margherita hut)
The ones that think that Alps are not wild don't know at all what they're speaking of, only few mountain group are "civilized", most are the Swiss ones in Valais and Engadina
... but if you don't think Alps are the best .. no problems, Himalaya is ready to get all your money

+0.5

gabriele wrote:Italy is the only nation that "has" all the Alps, France, Switzerland, Austria and Slovenia are in share, each having only a small part of the range.

That's an interesting analysis, never thought about such comparison according to the variety of environments. However, I think Austria also has a fair variety with most rock types and kind of terrain (Austria has got areas with granitic peaks, tell me if am I wrong ?), as well as some Dolomites-like regions even if they can't compare with all the splendor of the real Dolomites. France also has got a big share if you go until the south end. The Vercors, Verdon regions and so have meridional climates, limestone wall which, despite not always very similar with the Dolomites, are worth mention (turn it opposite, Italy perhaps doesn't have regions like the Vercors). But I see another important detail, tell me again if I'm wrong but talking Alpinism, one important discipline is glaciers, of course Italy do have some nice samples of them, but perhaps none comparable to the "seas of ice" that can be seen in Swiss and the north of the French Alps.

gabriele wrote:I think that nowhere else in the world we can find such variety of kind of summits, rocks, nature etc. in a so short (~600 kw wide) range.

In the world, as Diego said who can be sure. Been in New Zealand ? Me neither not, however I think speaking mountain variety in a small area there is here a competitor. But closer to the Alps, forgive me again for repeating but what about the Pyrenees : 400km long. No glacier but limestone, canyons, granite, lakes, green atmosphere on the north, mediterranean on the south, rains in the West, drought on the East...
Remove the Pyrenees and have a go in the Massif Central, no equal when it comes about geology. Go East and peer into the Carpathians, good variety too overthere despite more than 600km..

p.s: you omitted the German Alps. Mvs will be angry

visentin wrote:.. I think Austria also has ... France also has ... Italy ... none comparable to the "seas of ice" that can be seen in Swiss and the north of the French Alps.

sure, I didn't mean that Italy has all, I told that ALPS have all that can give satisfaction also to all the extreme climbers writing here

EDIT : oops I forgot this little wall that is only 2600m of difference in elevation ...


while this one

is a little smaller

visentin wrote:p.s: you omitted the German Alps. Mvs will be angry

Michael will never be angry with me, we share a big love for Alps (and have both climbed some amusing routes)