Jump to content

Talk:Geography of the North Cascades

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Elevation in metres as well as feet, please

[edit]

I'm tempted to add the globalize tempate, actually; the title issue here glosses over the reality that this article is also about the Cascade Mountains in Canada, aka the Canadian Cascades. The Notability tables only have feet, not metres, and omit prominent Canadian peaks - e.g. Stoyoma Mountain, with its 1157m prominence though only 2267 m (7438 ft) in height. Notability also isn't just about elevation and prominence; And relatively low and flattish Lytton Mountain is the most northerly of the range, for example, and it's : 2049 m (6722 ft) Prominence?: 764 m (over 2200' prominence) and I think it's Chopaka that's the most easterly. Welch Peak, in the Cheam Range (Four Brothers, though I know them as the Four Sisters), is even more in prominence than Stoyoma - Height: 2431 m (7976 ft) Prominence?: 1441m. Silvertip is even greater in prominence (and used to have a small ski area) - Height: 2596 m (8517 ft) Prominence: 1871m. So please, American editors, remember the range doesn't stop at the border, nor notability. Either this gets fixed or we DO define a separate "Canadian Cascades" article, with the very un-geographic 49th Parallel as the demarcator between the two; geographers and geologists don't do this, though at this point this article does....Skookum1 (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's partly because of the lack of metric measurements in the existing table that I confess to be being out of whack on whether Stoyoma outranks anything on the list at present; 1441m (Welch) and 1871m (Silvertip) certainly are well over 4000' and 5500' respectively though...Skookum1 (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the third list, regarding steep terrain, anyone who's had a good look at Hope Mountain and neighbouring [Isolillock http://bivouac.com/MtnPg.asp?MtnId=1252 Isolillock (Hope Mtn rises 1700m immediately south of the town of the same name), and of course Slesse, to know that that list is incomplete... and while many of the summits flanking the Fraser Canyon are gentle at their summits, and of relatively low prominence, their westward flanks plunge 6000' and more to the Fraser in a very short distance; really only viewable from the other side of the Fraser though....Skookum1 (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These tables were copied over from North Cascades: the US-centrism was also copied over. I've added metres to all of the tables: feel free to add Canadian peaks, waterfalls, etc., too. —hike395 (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I"m back here on limited time, and tonight am packing for a flight to Vancouver (from Halifax) soon, and have oodles of stuff to do backed up....I'll add Stoyoma etc but I don't have time to dig further; I just created a free account at bivouac.com but it still doesn't give me access to the PeakLister which would help me find the other high-prominence peaks. If you've got paid access there (I no longer edit there) please dig the rest out; I think maybe Coquihalla Mtn or one of its neighbours is also high-prominence....Skookum1 (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added all the Canadian ones I can find; I'd forgotten about Guanaco...there's a few in the 900m range but I made a cutoff at 1000m prominence. There may be other US-side ones in the remaining range above that, I'm not familiar with the range enough to know that. And could I suggest that "you guys" put some effort into the other BC mountain ranges to this effect, particularly the Selkirks, Monashees and Purcells (all three also straddle the border....).Skookum1 (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't looked at this page in a while--it's mostly just tables of notable peaks by elevation, prominence, etc, and waterfalls. Seems like so much more could/should be said! Somewhere around the house I have a copy of (forgive the template here) Beckey, Fred (2009). Cascade Alpine Guide: Climbing and High Routes: Rainy Pass to Fraser River (3rd ed.). The Mountaineers. ISBN 9780898864236. It's mainly a climbing guide but is chock full of info general geographic, historical, cultural, and etc etc etc. Beckey writes a lot about the Canadian Cascades. I think he came to enjoy climbing there after the US Cascades became rather overrun with climbers. I also have his book Beckey, Fred (2003). Range of Glaciers: The Exploration and Survey of the Northern Cascade Range. Oregon Historical Society Press. ISBN 0-87595-243-7. It's a dense, sometimes overly detailed tome. There are two long chapters (very long) on the border survey along the 49th parallel alone! I'll see if I can use these to flesh out the page, if I get the time (free time, yea right). But here's a basic question. Does the "geography of the North Cascades" include geology? The geology of the North Cascades is notably different from the rest of the range. What about the various river systems? Vegetation zones? Roads (or lack thereof)? One topic that could/should be covered is the glaciers. As Beckey points out in the very title of his history book, the North Cascades are a "range of glaciers", like none other in the contiguous United States. Forgive my US-POV in saying that. I've been to Banff and Jasper National Parks where there are some *serious* glaciers (the Coast Mountains probably even more so, but I haven't really been there). Still, if the page is to be full of tables, might as well add one for notable glaciers, and perhaps some text on the general glaciated landscape. Compared to other ranges I've explored the North Cascades are striking for their spiky pyramidal peaks ("horns"), arêtes, cirques, U-shaped valleys, etc--classically "alpine", in the "Alps" sense. It's striking how quickly that intensely glaciated look fades south of Glacier Peak, Mount Rainier, or so. Sometimes my family thinks about moving from Seattle to Portland. In some ways it's tempting, but man, although the Oregon Cascades are impressive, they are no match for the awesomeness of the North Cascades. Anyway, given time (ha!), I'll see what I can do. On the Selkirks, Monashees, and Purcells, I am mostly ignorant, so probably can't help much there. Pfly (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The SElkirks and Purcells are the only two of those that "cross into the US", though in the US the Purcells are the Percells....the name Monashees doesn't cross the border, it's BC-specific but the range does continue; the SElkirks end near Spokane/Couer d'Alene. Really just another set of tables would do, but then those range pages are really just lists of subranges at this point (lots of named subranges and range-groups...). As for glaciers in the Cascades they're VERY few north of the 49th Parallel, and the terrain changes markedly, other than the Cheam Range and the Slesse group there's very little north of the border; snowfields perhaps; the American CAnadian Border Peaks are linked by a large glacier/snowfield though. The northward "jut of the range is relatively flattish in character, with some horn-like summits in the Llamoid group; the line of division with the often-mountainous Thompson PLateau is somewhat arbitrary, especially towards the northward end; but at the same time those peaks/summits have, as noted above, westward flanks that form the eastern wall of the Fraser Canyon, a good mile deep and more. I think it's User:Spireguy who'd come up with, for bivouac.com or his own purposes, a measure of "spire", which was some kind of way to calculate relief, can't remmber if he included prominence in the calculation.....Mount Outram, despite its huge prominence, like Stoyoma, is relatively "round topped" and more of a plateau-summit, like most things north of Highway 3; though there's some spires in there, including one nice-looking one, either Tulameen MOuntain or Coquihalla Mountain, which can be seen from the area of the town of Tulameen (nice place, pfly, check it out). The link between geology and geography is, to me, sketchy...Lytton Mountain, for example, is part of a geological format which continues on the other side of the THompson and isn't the same as the rest of the CAscades to the south of it; geography is about landform, geology is what's underneath, even though it influences what's above; but watch everybody with generalizations on th range based on the Washington North Cascades; they don't hold true for the Okanagan Range, or for the HOzameen Range or the Coquihalla Range (i.e. for most of the CAnadian Cascades other than those west of the Skagit River).Skookum1 (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some BC Cascade peaks of note with no pages

[edit]

Looking through Beckey's Cascade Alpine Guide book online I noted that a number of apparently significant peaks have no Wikipedia pages at all. Here's a partial list:

Some BC Cascade peaks needing pages:

  • Mount McGuire, 6,620 feet (2,020 m); "...its W slope plunges 6,000 ft." (Beckey).
  • Frosty Mountain, 7,975 feet (2,431 m); "Frosty is a dominant summit on the Cascade Range backbone (on the Castle–Lightning creeks divide...)" (Beckey)
  • Baby Munday Peak, 7,200 feet (2,195 m); "This is a spectacular, hornlike rock peak..." (Beckey)
  • Chuwanten Mountain, 7,048 feet (2,148 m); "this is the highest summit on the Castle Creek–Pasayten River divide. The ascent was probably done in 1859–60 by the Boundary Survey..."
  • Tulameen Mountain, 7,499 feet (2,286 m); "a significant massive mountain in the Hozameen Range..."
  • Silver Peak, 6,400 feet (1,951 m); "this peak is prominent from Hope..."

There's a lot more info in his book, but I'll have to wait to acquire a "full preview" (ie, go to the library). Pfly (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Tomyhoi Peak is in Washington (just barely). —hike395 (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another, Foley Peak, apparently the second highest summit of the Cheam Range. It seems to have no entry in peakbagger.com, which seems odd. Anyway, I have little time right now, so here's a summary of what Beckey says about it, in Cascade Alpine Guide, Rainy Pass to Fraser River, p. 150:

Foley Peak (7,570 ft/2,308 m) -- Foley is a steep rock pyramid, smaller but equally as impressive as Welch Peak, to which it is connected by a col on the W. It is the eastern summit of the Cheam Range, and the small glacier on its NE flank (Lucky Four Glacier) is the farthest one in the range... Foley Peak has a SW summit &7,300 ft+/2,226 m+) along the narrow ridge from the col...

There's a photo on p. 151, showing Foley and Welch peaks, with a lower saddle (col?) between, occupied by Foley Glacier. They certainly look like distinct peaks, perhaps of the "sisters" type. I dunno, maybe its close connection to Welch Peak caused peakbagger.com to ignore it (probably has a low prominence), but from Beckey's decription is seems notable for being the 2nd highest of the Cheam Range, and the most eastern, among other things. Anyway, thought I'd mention it quickly here. Pfly (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does "formally named" mean?

[edit]

The Subranges section says it lists "formally named subranges", and mentions the "informally" named, Coquihalla Range. I was going to copy over the range list from the name North Cascades page, but this made me pause. I'm guessing "formally named" might mean that there is an entry in the GNIS and BCGNIS databases. Is that the idea? If so, I'm not sure whether these agencies are all that thorough in recording the names of mountain ranges, especially small subranges. Anyway, if nothing else it would be useful to explain what the term means. I think the Methow Mountains (AKA Sawtooth Ridge) is in GNIS, or on USGS maps anyway.Pfly (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geography_of_the_North_Cascades&oldid=1205746311"