Mountains and Living in WA?

[SSC_43]

Wow, these responses are truly terrific everybody. I've been a little busy so responding to these have proven to be difficult, but rest assured it's not falling on deaf ears.

Off the top of my head, no, I'm not a troll (lol) but I wasn't out in CO for more than about a year. The weather was not what I was expecting, but it could have been a bad summer season.

And, nope, this SSC name has nothing to do with what was mentioned, sorry!

But really this has been eye-opening (particularly the access to mountains in CO,) as well as some of the amazing info about Spokane. The guy I know who lived there (who lives here now,) made it sound much less arid than I've read here, so that's good to know.

And interestingly enough, Medford OR has been on my radar for years. So I'm glad to hear that as well.

If I didn't directly address anything believe me, it has still been seen. So thanks once again!

[PaliKona]

FWIW this was the wettest summer in the Denver area (and Front Range, Summit, Eagle Counties) in the ten I've been here...

[Jsandog]

Curious about the comparison of mountains...aren't the North Cascades comparable to the Gores or the San Juans (esp. the Weminuche ?) in terms of ruggedness?

They are indeed rugged, but not quite on the same scale. Most of the Gores and San Juans still have walkup routes (only a few don't), while the Northern Cascades definitely have more peaks that are not.

The most rugged mountain areas in Colorado seem to be the San Juans, Gores, Indian Peaks, northern Park Range, Elk Range, and around the Crestones (maybe even the far northern Sawatch which have a lot in common with the Gores). Outside those areas, most mountains in Colorado aren't rugged (which is an advantage in several ways as well). There are rugged mountains in Colorado, and there are less than rugged mountains in Washington, but on average, the alpine peaks are more rugged in Washington than they are here.

The high mountains in Colorado are very accessible (at least the ones on public land). Thousands of people have climbed all the 14ers in Colorado. Very few (if any?) have climbed all of the 50 highest mountains in Washington. I know a couple people are close to finishing the top 50.

Even among us that work full time, there are several 14ers.com members who climb 75+ mountains a year in Colorado (I am one of them, but others climb 100+ or even much more). Doing so in Washington would be a tough task.

I'd say that overall and on average that after Nevada, Colorado might have the least rugged mountains of the western states (though some of the rugged mountains in some western states are mostly in the desert). On the plus side, we in Colorado also have the best accessibility to high peaks, especially if you are short on time. No other state has so many high elevation roads as we have here. No other state even comes remotely close. This is even more true of non-summer ascents. It's amazing how many high mountain roads here are open in winter. In Colorado, you can do many 12, 13, and 14,000 foot peaks as day trips in winter. Outside Colorado, this is rarely possible for mere mortal climbers and there are only a few peaks that fit the bill.

It's no coincidence that almost all of the people (at least in the US) that have climbed thousands of peaks are from Colorado. If you want to climb a lot of mountains year round, then this is the place to do it.

Is the rock a lot better in the North Cascades?

It depends on where you are, but overall, no. The mention Gores actually have good rock.

I agree that the Cascades and Olympics are very rugged mountains compared to the majority of Colorado's peaks. However I do think the San Juans, Elk Mountains, Sangre de Cristo's, and Gore Range are not that far off from being just as rugged as the peaks in Washington State. The Indian Peaks in Colorado could also be considered just as rugged, but they lack the vertical rise IMO to be comparable to the Cascades or Olympics. Longs Peak by itself could easily be a contender though.
Also the only reason the majority of Colorado peaks seem less rugged is because Colorado has many more high mountainous areas than Washington does, you can't compare the Sawatch Range or Mosquito Range instead of the San Juans to the North Cascades and then assume that this is a representation of all Colorado peaks. Sure the overall majority of Colorado peaks are not exceptionally rugged but if you combine the area of the San Juans, the Elk's, the Sangres, and the Gores then CO easily matches the area of the Cascades and Olympics in Washington and has very comparable ruggedness.

While many people in Colorado have climbed 100+ mountains, the vast majority of these peaks include the "easy" peaks of the Front Range, Sawatch Range, and Mosquito Range. Of all the people I've met in Colorado who have climbed 100 plus mountains only a few of them have climbed some of the very difficult peaks in the Needles or Grenadiers of the San Juans.

So again it's not really a fair comparison to say that Colorado has few rugged mountains simply because most of the 14ers are walk ups and most of the 13ers of the Front Range and Mosquito Range are walk ups too, because these are the main contributors to the lists of the 100+ peaks that hardcore peak baggers in Colorado have climbed. I'd say get a list of the hardest 50 peaks in Washington and also a list of the top 50 hardest peaks in Colorado and you'll see that neither has very many people who can claim to have summited them all.

Also while there are many peaks in the San Juans that don't require technical skills (I think calling most of the San Juan peaks walk-ups is a bit modest) they still require class 3 and 4 moves with several requiring class 5. While the Cascades and Olympics might be slightly more rugged near their summits, the main reason they are overall more difficult is due to the fact that in addition to class 4 or 5 moves you also have to travel over glacier covered terrain which increases difficulty considerably rather than just the fact that WA peaks are slightly more rugged. Even Mount Rainier would be a walk up if it weren't covered in Glaciers and it didn't have terrible weather all the time. Pico de Orizaba and Mount Kilimanjaro are huge volcanoes of similar stature to Mount Rainier but they lack glaciers and have much better weather and therefore they are both just VERY LONG walk ups. Rainier is smaller than either of these other peaks but it's the glacier travel, 9,000 foot ascent and miserable weather that make it one of the toughest peaks in the world to climb rather than a need for technical climbing skills.

One last major contributor to the reason that even Colorado's most rugged peaks are easier is because of the many many years of establishing trails and building dirt roads deep into mountainous areas that enable climbers to get much closer to the summits. This could easily be done in many areas of the Cascades too in order to ease the climbing process but this will never happen most likely.

The Needle's and Grenadier Range in the San Juans are definitely a piece of the Cascades in Colorado. The Sneffels Range, Crestones, Elk's, and Gores are not too far off either. If Colorado had glaciers then all these rugged peaks would be much more difficult to climb.

Also I 100% disagree that Colorado has the least rugged mountains in the Western US after Nevada. Colorado has MANY more rugged peaks than Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and arguably Wyoming do. The Wasatch range in Utah is very rugged and comparable to the Elks or San Jauns in my opinion. However the Wasatch are the only really rugged mountains in Utah as the only other major range, the Uintah's are comparable to the Front Range in terms of ruggedness. Not only are the San Juans just as rugged as the Wasatch, they also cover a MUCH larger area and Colorado also has the Elk's, Gore's, and Sangre de Cristo's and therefore has many more rugged peaks than Utah. Wyoming IMO is equal to Colorado in terms of rugged mountains, the Tetons are somewhat more rugged than the San Juans but they are smaller in area and overall the other peaks in Wyoming are pretty comparable to Colorado's. Oregon has Mount Hood, but other than Hood only areas of the Wallowa mountains and the three sisters are very rugged, and together they only cover a small area compared to Colorado's rugged peaks.

Idaho and Montana may have a slightly higher number of rugged peaks than Colorado but it's tough to determine for sure. The Sawtooth's are comparable to the San Juans, and the peaks in eastern Idaho remind me of the Sangre's. Other than that the mountains in northern Idaho aren't anything really that rugged overall and are Comparable to the Front Range and Mosquito Range. In Montana the areas in Glacier National Park around the lakes are more rugged than the most rugged areas of the San Juans. However the majority of the mountains in Northern Montana as well as the Beartooth's in southern Montana are similar to the San Juans, Sangres, Gores, and Elks in Colorado and again they cover a similar area. The mountains in Central Montana between Glacier and the Beartooths are not very rugged by any means other than a few spots.

Well just wanted to contribute my input and of course these are just my opinions. Great posts everyone!

[Jsandog]

Off the top of my head, no, I'm not a troll (lol) but I wasn't out in CO for more than about a year. The weather was not what I was expecting

I will also vouch for the weather this summer being much cloudier than normal, but it certainly was sunny for more than just three hours most days even when storms rolled in for much of the afternoon. A summer day with 12 hours of daylight can be cloudy for six hours and still have 6 hours of sun. If you've only been in Colorado for a year then you must realize that this summer was an abnormal one in terms of cloudy days.

The 300 days of sun thing is subjective, but Colorado is definitely sunnier than every other region of the U.S. other than the desert southwest. If the weather wasn't what you were expecting you must still realize that this summer was abnormal and that Colorado is still sunnier than most of the U.S.

Although if you dislike dry climates with little water then yes I would go somewhere other than the Rocky Mountain states.

[Tigerbear]

There is no sun in the trees in Rainier area! very wet..

[Scott P]

Colorado is definitely sunnier than every other region of the U.S. other than the desert southwest.

Here's a map for those interested.

s.JPG (51.59 KiB) Viewed 2671 times

[Jsandog]

For the big cities (in order), Salt Lake, Las Vegas, and maybe even Boise have better/faster (especially SLC) access to the mountains than Denver does (though the ones around LV are more desert like and the mountains around Boise aren't as spectacular as the Wasatch unless you drive to the Sawtooths, which are really spectacular), though the traffic in Las Vegas is at least as bad as the traffic in Denver and is probably worse.

Although access to the outdoors is better, each of those cities also has advantages/disadvantages as well. Salt Lake City and Boise have nasty inversions (which are the worse than the "brown cloud" that Denver sometimes has). Utah and Idaho in general, especially in rural areas have a real anti-wilderness and anti-public land attitude (both in the state government and among much of the population). Also, wages tend to be lower there as well. The cost of living is lower (especially for housing), but not usually not low enough to make up for the discrepancy in wages. In Utah or Idaho, I figure that I'd probably make about 75-80% of what I do now, which is fairly typical for many occupations when comparing between the two areas.

Places like Grand Junction would be a great place for those who like the outdoors and a touch of the city. I sure wish I lived there (I used to live in Fruita, which was really ideal). To me, it was much better than the place I live now, but where ever you live, you just have to make do with what you have.

Of these cities I would say only Salt Lake City has better quick access to awesome mountains than Denver does. But it's still just an extra 30 minute drive from Denver to reach the high peaks of the front range. Sure if you live in Aurora then you are 30 minutes from the foothills but if you live in the western metro area of Denver in Golden or Lakewood then the foothills are in your backyard and the highest peaks of the front range are only a 35 to 40 minute drive away. Even the highest peaks of the Wasatch range are still a 20 minute drive from downtown Salt Lake City. The Wasatch range is more rugged than most of the Front Range, but the Front Range is much more extensive than the Wasatch range and the northern Front Range is still very rugged indeed. The peaks to the west of Salt Lake City are comparable to the foothills of the front range in terms of vertical rise and overall ruggedness but even when included with the Wasatch they all still take up a much smaller area that the Front Range does. So Denver has better mountains within an hours drive than SLC does in my opinion, but SLC is 30 minutes closer to big mountains and great skiing.

Boise is comparable to the Denver metro in terms of being located at the base of a mountain range, but the mountains near Boise are much smaller than the Front Range. For example the highest mountains within 35 miles of Boise rise about 5,400 feet above the city compared to 9,000 feet in the Front Range 35 miles from Denver and they much less rugged overall than the Front Range. The Sawtooths are 65 miles away from Boise but that's not really a close distance for an after work trip.

Las Vegas is close to awesome canyon country to the east and north, but the mountains to the west are very small in area and just as far from Vegas as the mountains are from Denver. The highest peaks of the mountains west of Vegas are comparable to Denver but again Denver has SO MANY more big mountains close by than Vegas does and has decent canyons in the foothills.

Grand Junction is great too, but access to mountains is not close at all. Grand Junction has the best canyon country of any city mentioned but no large mountains within a 2 hour drive.

Seattle is a little further from the Cascades and Olympics than Denver is from the Front Range, but still only an extra 30 minutes or so. Also Seattle has access to boating and water sports that no other city mentioned has. Swimming in the Pacific near Seattle is not recommended though as you can easily get hypothermia in a short time due to the very cold waters of the Pacific.

Each of these cities offers advantages over the other, but I wouldn't say any of them are superior in all aspects of access to the outdoors.

[coneydogron]

For what its worth, I've lived in MI my entire life but when I feel like getting my mountain on Colorado is my spot. I've hiked in the cascades and love them too but something about CO keeps drawing me in.

[Scott P]

Of these cities I would say only Salt Lake City has better quick access to awesome mountains than Denver does. But it's still just an extra 30 minute drive from Denver to reach the high peaks of the front range. Sure if you live in Aurora then you are 30 minutes from the foothills but if you live in the western metro area of Denver in Golden or Lakewood then the foothills are in your backyard and the highest peaks of the front range are only a 35 to 40 minute drive away. Even the highest peaks of the Wasatch range are still a 20 minute drive from downtown Salt Lake City. The Wasatch range is more rugged than most of the Front Range, but the Front Range is much more extensive than the Wasatch range and the northern Front Range is still very rugged indeed.

I'd agree with the above, but the uplift that caused the Wasatch actually extends from Idaho to nearly Arizona, so the uplift is longer than the Front Range, but isn't as wide. Most of the mountains aren't as rugged as the Wasatch proper south of Mount Nebo though.

The peaks to the west of Salt Lake City are comparable to the foothills of the front range in terms of vertical rise and overall ruggedness but even when included with the Wasatch they all still take up a much smaller area that the Front Range does.

The Oquirrh Mountains have a rise of 4500-5500 feet above the valley floor, and you are right that they aren't as rugged as the Wasatch. It's kind of irrelevant though since access to those mountains is actually quite poor because Kennicott owns most of them and won't allow access (especially in the northern half of the range on the east side). Just to the west of the Oquirrh Mts though, are the Stansbury Mountains, which are similar to the Wasatch, but not as extensive.

Outside the Oquirrhs though, access is good to the mountains in all directions. There are no mountains east of Denver for thousands of miles, but in SLC, there are nice mountains in all directions.

So Denver has better mountains within an hours drive than SLC does in my opinion, but SLC is 30 minutes closer to big mountains and great skiing.

Having explored both areas rather extensively, I'd disagree that the ones around Denver are somehow "better mountains". From my experience, it would be the opposite, at least on average, though both areas have great mountains. The core of the Wasatch around SLC bears much resemblance to the Indian Peaks, but with much more local relief. The areas around Utah county resemble parts of Glacier National Park, at least on Timpanogos and Cascade Mountains.

Boise is comparable to the Denver metro in terms of being located at the base of a mountain range, but the mountains near Boise are much smaller than the Front Range. For example the highest mountains within 35 miles of Boise rise about 5,400 feet above the city compared to 9,000 feet in the Front Range 35 miles from Denver and they much less rugged overall than the Front Range. The Sawtooths are 65 miles away from Boise but that's not really a close distance for an after work trip.

Boise is actually (at least the two downtown areas) quite a bit closer to the mountains, but I agree 100% that they are less spectacular than the Wasatch or much of the Front Range. I think I pointed that out. From Boise, you really have to drive all the way to the Sawtooths to see something really spectacular, alpine wise.

Las Vegas is close to awesome canyon country to the east and north, but the mountains to the west are very small in area and just as far from Vegas as the mountains are from Denver. The highest peaks of the mountains west of Vegas are comparable to Denver but again Denver has SO MANY more big mountains close by than Vegas does and has decent canyons in the foothills.

You are referring to alpine mountains only, but Las Vegas actually has some really nice desert mountains. I actually said access to the outdoors, then access to strictly alpine areas. The mountains around Las Vegas aren't nearly as high as the ones around SLC or Denver, but they certainly are rugged. Las Vegas is actually almost completely surrounded by rugged mountains. Other than the Spring Mountains, they aren't alpine. All the mountains surrounding Las Vegas are well endowed with rugged peaks (mostly desert peaks). That said though, I enjoy visiting the mountains around Las Vegas, but Las Vegas isn't a desirable place at all to live (in my opinion).

Grand Junction is great too, but access to mountains is not close at all. Grand Junction has the best canyon country of any city mentioned but no large mountains within a 2 hour drive.

I was speaking of access to the outdoors, rather than alpine areas only. It depends on what you mean by "large mountains" though. The mountains right around Grand Junction aren't as high as the Wasatch or Front Range. The Book Cliffs (which actually has several peaks that almost everyone would consider mountains) rise 4500 feet above the valley floor. The Grand Mesa (said to be the world's largest flat top mountain, though I won't make that claim) is 6700 feet above the city. Ouray or the West Elk Mountains are about 90 miles away, if Grand Mesa or the peaks of the Book Cliffs aren't large enough to be counted.

Like SLC though, Grand Junction is surrounded by nice country in all directions. Along the Front Range cities, there isn't much to see as you go east. When I lived in Fruita, from my house I could walk to some extensive and rather spectacular wilderness. To do this, I wouldn't haven't to drive anywhere at all and could do it after work every day. I wished I still lived there. Where I live now, I'm next to a hiking trail up the Sand Rocks, but it is not the same as it was in Fruita (or even SLC).

If you can live in a small town and find work, there are actually many places in the Western States (including Colorado) where you can do this.

If I ever could sell my house (which is probably near impossible right now), I'd probably at least try to move to Moab (which is actually close to both desert and alpine areas) since it's reasonable to find a job there. Fruita/Grand Junction might be my second choice since I probably couldn't afford something like Aspen, Telluride, etc. Ridgeway would be great too.

One thing I can say from experience though is that living almost anywhere out west is preferably to living in some place like Chicago.

[Dave B]

Also I 100% disagree that Colorado has the least rugged mountains in the Western US after Nevada. Colorado has MANY more rugged peaks than Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and arguably Wyoming do. ...

Wyoming IMO is equal to Colorado in terms of rugged mountains, the Tetons are somewhat more rugged than the San Juans but they are smaller in area and overall the other peaks in Wyoming are pretty comparable to Colorado's.

Yeooow. Major disagreement.

The Winds, alone, make Wyoming the state with the second or third most rugged mountains in the entire lower 48 (behind WA and likely ahead of CA and the Sierra).

[PaliKona]

I've always sensed a weird vibe in SLC, not sure why. ...the Wasatch is awesome but a lot smaller than I expected. And that brown cloud inversion is as bad as LA's was...so nasty.

I feel like in many discussions I've had about US Mtns, the San Juans never get then respect they deserve. Those are rugged f'ing mtns!! And the ski mountaineering possibilities are off the charts.

[Monster5]

Mmm Portland Metro >> Seattle Metro. Seattle mountain access > Portland mountain access.

Agree:
-Cascades have significantly harder glaciated mountaineering objectives with a more limited range of route difficulties.
-Colorado has significantly better year round access and fun-for-everyone route variety on high peaks. CO lacks glaciers, but it does not lack in alpine snow, rock and ice routes. Climb up some insanely difficult route, meet up with your buddy who came up the moderate route, meet up with the significant other and kids on the summit, and walk down the trail back to the car.
-On average, desert peaks in UT and elsewhere are exceedingly more difficult than CO alpine peaks via the easiest route. I do not agree with the NM/Arizona/Idaho comparisons as more difficult on the whole. Access, perhaps.
-Colorado peaks have soft ratings and they're only getting softer. Byproduct of our mountain popularity and route variety. I'm guessing Little Bear Hourglass will be rated 5.5 and the Crestone Traverse 5.7 within a decade. Now where did I put that 20 page packet about how to climb those... Yes, I know, I'm an elitist. So are you, Mr. 3000 Feet.
-Colorado has incredible mountaineering. Sneffles Range w/ snow, Cimarrons, Grenadiers, Needles, Elks w/ snow, Gore, IPW (don't be too quick to dismiss the lowly IPW ruggedness because it's among the best), RMNP, Crestones area, Indy Pass to HCW parts of the Sawatch, and so forth. My only recommendation would be to not get too fixated on 14ers and elevation beyond introductions to the area as you'll miss out on a whole lot of quality.Those focusing on routes rather than summits will find unheralded gems on nearly all of our peaks.
-Washington has incredible mountaineering. Glaciers, snow/precip. and so forth on the alpine peaks - North Cascades, volcanoes, etc. Fun-for-everyone route variety on lower peaks, though trickier state-wide access and worse weather. The bad weather there covers entire areas and days. One can usually keep an eye on localized boomers here and dodge them or wait somewhere 20 min as needed.
-Wyoming has incredible mountaineering. Wind Rivers, Tetons, Big Horns. Mostly difficult rock climbing objectives with some localized intense ski mountaineering.
-Montana has incredible mountaineering. Wait, Montana has mountains? Aren't they just an extension of Idaho, which is an extension of Washington? That's what I learned in school.
-California has incredible mountaineering. Palisades, JMT, high Sierra, northern volcanoes. Spread apart and tricky city access.
-Utah has incredible mountaineering. As per the "weird vibe," I agree, and I've always theorized it had to do with the Mormon vs. obviously and proudly not Mormon vs jack Mormon miscreant cultural deal going on. That's from an outsiders perspective. BTW, I now agree with the whole UT police targeting CO license plates conspiracy theory.

Basically, there's an infinite number of lifetimes worth of incredible mountaineering and exploration in any of the mountainous states. Choose the living area with the best quality of life and family opportunities and you'll get to know and find the good stuff outdoors.

Now why don't I agree with most of the crap written on this thread and why don't you, the reader, agree with the crap I've written? Because you, like me, are generalizing entire areas based on an over-exaggerated representation of your basis of comparison and experience because you, like me, have only experienced minuscule portions of a single lifetime exploring the infinite. I've dabbled here and there and delved there and here, but in reality, I still don't know s**t about there, here, or there. However, my goal is to expand said lack of knowledge as frequently as possible.