The meat of the mountain from...

View High-Resolution Image
The meat of the mountain from...

The meat of the mountain from...

The meat of the mountain from the WSW (from Pk 7592) on June 19, 2005. It looks like many pyramidal peaks stacked up on one another.

Note the narrow snowfinger gully (orange dot in this picture). Hidden from this view is the final south-facing gully, its base marked by the upper arrow.
Klenke
on Aug 12, 2005 10:41 pm
Lat/Lon: 48.65680°N / 120.752°W
Image ID: 120000

Comments

Post a Comment
Viewing: 1-5 of 5
John Kirk

John Kirk - Oct 2, 2008 2:00 pm - Voted 10/10

Which contour is higher?

From the picture, looks like you're showing the south of the two 8,400' contours is the higher of the two, right?

Thanks

Klenke

Klenke - Oct 2, 2008 2:27 pm - Hasn't voted

Re: Which is contour higher?

Yes, the true summit is the south summit. Here is a view of the north summit from the south summit.

John Kirk

John Kirk - Oct 2, 2008 3:39 pm - Voted 10/10

Thanks

I'm putting together a list of all 300' mean prominence WA peaks - this is helpful to know.

Klenke

Klenke - Oct 3, 2008 12:22 am - Hasn't voted

Re: Thanks

That will be a big list. This will in no way diminish Howbert's work, which I view as not only seminal but institutional for Washington.

Serious peakbaggers in WA will have a hard time buying in to the 300-ft cut-off, especially for a "mean" prominence 300-ft cut off. So this list will be mostly only useful for WA outsiders whose own states use 300 ft.

This has presented me with a dilemma when I climb unnamed summits outside of Washington. If the summit has less than 400 ft of "clean" prominence (say 323P) and it is unnamed, can I count it? Or can I use that state's cut-off value (if 300P) and thereby count it (I'm talking about counting it in my personal log)?

In terms of quantity, someone who climbs 2500 400+ prominence peaks has worked a lot harder than someone who has done 2500 300+ prominence peaks.

John Kirk

John Kirk - Oct 3, 2008 10:40 am - Voted 10/10

Re: Thanks

Agreed. Going deeper into detail can't hurt. I'm looking at 300' interpolated prominence primarily for consistency and the ability to compare "apples to apples", as I have completed listing seven other western states using 300' interpolated. No doubt the results will show impressive figures for WA. A clean 400 list/interface may be an add-on/option at some point to honor the local criteria.

Viewing: 1-5 of 5