Video from Pennsylvania's highest point

by **John Duffield** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:09 pm

Well, I know where an ancient forest is right here in New York State. Biggest stand of white oak in the state. Never been logged except for a few ships masts BITD. Nice to stroll through them. Deer, ruffed grouse, osprey, you name it. Professional strength bugs though like any wilderness. Naturally, you're not supposed to go there. That said, of all the forests in the USA, the Olympic National Park is perhaps the most amazing.

by **welle** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:32 pm

redneck wrote:
MikeTX wrote:no doubt that the mountains in california are far more spectacular, but the ruggedness of the trails in pennsylvania have earned the state a reputation. AT hikers are often quoted as saying pennsylvania is where old boots go to die. perhaps this was what your uncle was thinking of.

So Pennsylvania is famous for crappy trails?

The thing with Eastern Mountains, especially Northeastern ones, the trails were put up in 19th and early 20th century by Calvinists, who found pleasure in torturing themselves. Most trails shoot up straight the incline without any bends that Westerners are spoiled by. I must agree though - summits with dense trees on them suck!

by **mrchad9** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:41 pm

MikeTX wrote:
welle wrote:
redneck wrote:
MikeTX wrote:no doubt that the mountains in california are far more spectacular, but the ruggedness of the trails in pennsylvania have earned the state a reputation. AT hikers are often quoted as saying pennsylvania is where old boots go to die. perhaps this was what your uncle was thinking of.

So Pennsylvania is famous for crappy trails?

The thing with Eastern Mountains, especially Northeastern ones, the trails were put up in 19th and early 20th century by Calvinists, who found pleasure in torturing themselves. Most trails shoot up straight the incline without any bends that Westerners are spoiled by. I must agree though - summits with dense trees on them suck!

so true. perhaps instead of comparing forested areas we should be comparing areas with alpine vegetation. that's where the west truely dominates.

Argee Welle. Some summits could use a good fire or some logging. Santa Barbara county highpoint here in CA is much nice now that it has been scorched.

Not trying to bash the east here, as Sarah said it is just different, but my brother (who is back east) once tried to use the line that it was the same, just smaller. That didn't fly. He was talking about North Carolina being much like CA, with beaches and mountains.

So I very quickly rattled off a list. "Oh, so North Carolina has deserts, glaciers, volcanoes, lava tubes, salt lakes, thermal features, etc..."

Again, not to bash the east. Colorado doesn't have those things either.

by **Diggler** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:14 pm

mrchad9 wrote:
So I very quickly rattled off a list. "Oh, so North Carolina has deserts, glaciers, volcanoes, lava tubes, salt lakes, thermal features, etc..."

Again, not to bash the east. Colorado doesn't have those things either.

Colorado definitely has deserts, (a few small) glaciers, & there are (extinct) volcanoes. There are some great hot springs, too!

by **mrchad9** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:22 pm

Diggler wrote:
mrchad9 wrote:
So I very quickly rattled off a list. "Oh, so North Carolina has deserts, glaciers, volcanoes, lava tubes, salt lakes, thermal features, etc..."

Again, not to bash the east. Colorado doesn't have those things either.

Colorado definitely has deserts, (a few small) glaciers, & there are (extinct) volcanoes. There are some great hot springs, too!

True- you got me on the deserts and hot springs.

How big is St. Mary's? Does it have a crevasse? (not meaning to be sarcastic. I really don't know).

by **welle** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:32 pm

North Carolina has a great piece of granite in Looking Glass and best Q, but I agree with you though. Plus their surfing and beach season gets cut short by hurricanes...

by **mrchad9** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:35 pm

And it rains in the summer. No good.

by **John Duffield** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:11 pm

welle wrote:I must agree though - summits with dense trees on them suck!

Yes. Peaks in the East are low, no question. A function of being low, means a lot of summits are below the tree line. Several Catskills peaks, for example, are a hack-your-way-to-the- top. No trails. Not even sure exactly where the summit is when/if you get there. Bug eaten, scratched, sweaty, filthy, exhausted when you get to the top of a 3500 footer nobody ever heard of, is our stock in trade.

by **mrchad9** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:29 pm

John, I thought you lived in Oregon. No?

by **Diggler** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:48 pm

mrchad9 wrote:
Diggler wrote:
mrchad9 wrote:
So I very quickly rattled off a list. "Oh, so North Carolina has deserts, glaciers, volcanoes, lava tubes, salt lakes, thermal features, etc..."

Again, not to bash the east. Colorado doesn't have those things either.

Colorado definitely has deserts, (a few small) glaciers, & there are (extinct) volcanoes. There are some great hot springs, too!

True- you got me on the deserts and hot springs.

How big is St. Mary's? Does it have a crevasse? (not meaning to be sarcastic. I really don't know).

Well, there WERE glaciers... I remember reading that the Arapahoe Glacier was Colorado's largest at some point.

Just found this: http://bcn.boulder.co.us/basin/learning/arapahoe.html

"Downgraded from a glacier to a snowfield in 1998..." A sign of the times... :cry:

by **MoapaPk** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:05 pm

James_W wrote:The intact ancient forests are in green on this map. What parts are you speaking of in your comment?

Under the 'O' in Ottawa are the old growth forests of the Adirondacks. They may appear small on the map, but I guarantee they swallow up hubris the second you leave the trail. Similar for the old-growth forests of Maine. (it is amazing that any survived, given beech blights, fires from Amerinds and RRs, and the logging companies.) There are lots of patches of old growth forests that probably would appear at less than a pixel-width in the graphic; for example, an area that was extremely boggy would not have been logged, nor would the top of a mountain, even if were treed.

I'm surprised by all the forests shown in this graphic, up near the Artic Circle. I think we probably have some old growth catclaws forests out here in southern NV, too.

The old growth stands are actually fairly easy walking (by eastern standards) compared to areas that were burned or logged. Witness the story of Douglas Legg, and the California crack SAR team that was spanked hard in the search for him.

Edits: spelling and this !@#$%^&* keyboard, extra info.

by **James_W** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:11 pm

tioga wrote:James_W and redneck: What is this bashing of the eastern United States mountains? Have you guys ever even been to Pennsylvania? I bet you would have a different view on the mountains there if you spent some considerable time there. And why are the California mountains suddenly so big? There are mountains in this world that would make them look like mere hills. Note, I am not saying that the California mountains are bad; I have been to California once and really enjoyed the beauty it had to offer. However, I agree with Sarah.Simon that the eastern mountains are a completely different type of mountain than the western mountains.

Also, James_W, I agree that the eastern US mountains may not contain 'ancient' forests, as most of the territory there has been logged over at least once. However, one thing I noticed on that map was that there is considerable more forests in the eastern US compared to the western US. Believe me, it is not all cities, highways, and suburbs out here. Try going to northern Maine, northcentral Pennsylvania, or a number of other places and you will see that the eastern US does indeed have 'wild' areas and beauty. So, again, I stress my first point; spend time in these mountains and you will find the great beauty there.

Born and raised in the east and have seen most of it from northern Ontario to southern Florida. I doubt there is a place you have seen that I have not.

by **MoapaPk** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:22 pm

James_W wrote:Born and raised in the east and have seen most of it from northern Ontario to southern Florida. I doubt there is a place you have seen that I have not.

I would guess that you have seen it mainly from trails.

by **Castlereagh** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:36 pm

James_W wrote:
tioga wrote:James_W and redneck: What is this bashing of the eastern United States mountains? Have you guys ever even been to Pennsylvania? I bet you would have a different view on the mountains there if you spent some considerable time there. And why are the California mountains suddenly so big? There are mountains in this world that would make them look like mere hills. Note, I am not saying that the California mountains are bad; I have been to California once and really enjoyed the beauty it had to offer. However, I agree with Sarah.Simon that the eastern mountains are a completely different type of mountain than the western mountains.

Also, James_W, I agree that the eastern US mountains may not contain 'ancient' forests, as most of the territory there has been logged over at least once. However, one thing I noticed on that map was that there is considerable more forests in the eastern US compared to the western US. Believe me, it is not all cities, highways, and suburbs out here. Try going to northern Maine, northcentral Pennsylvania, or a number of other places and you will see that the eastern US does indeed have 'wild' areas and beauty. So, again, I stress my first point; spend time in these mountains and you will find the great beauty there.

Born and raised in the east and have seen most of it from northern Ontario to southern Florida. I doubt there is a place you have seen that I have not.

A little presumptuous, don't you think?

Have we really been reduced to pointless pissing matches about whose backyards are better? It's the outdoors; it's all good. People have different tastes. Some prefer mountains, some prefer the beach, others prefer the desert, or badlands, or whatever floats their boat. (Some people, God forbid, even like the city!) Some can appreciate all sorts of landscapes, others prefer their own niche. No one's more right or more wrong.

And personally, yes I'd rather be out west all the time. But since I'm still stuck here in the east I might as well enjoy what outdoors I can brood indoors all day.

by **mrchad9** » Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:48 pm

If you think 'it's all good' then you obviously have never lived in Houston.

Video from Pennsylvania's highest point

Who is online