Robert,
Glad you enjoyed the photos. There will be more as I discipline myself to
take my camera on tree and mountain ventures. In the past I relied on friends
to do what I should have also been doing. I'm finally getting my act together.
I have a lot of photographic documentation to catch up on.
With respect to vertical relief of mountains, over the years I've done
dozens of analyses on East versus West, mountain range versus mountain range,
and peak versus peak. I am as big of a nut on mountains as trees. I would agree
that the East does has some big climbs that can go unappreciated by westerners.
The west side of the Great Smokies in eastern Tennesse and the White Mountains
in New Hampshire have the biggest climbs in terms of vertical relief. They are
followed by the isolated summit points of Mount Kathadin in Maine and Giant
Mountain in the Adirondacks . T he Blacks and Balsams of North Carolina and
Adiriondack High Peaks come next . There are a few large elevation gains (3,000
feet) in the Green Mountains and Taconics of Vermont. The Blue Ridge of North
Carolina, Virgina, and Georgia, the Greens and Taconics in Vermont , the
Catskills of New York, and some of the other Maine Appalachians form a large
area of mountains where vertical relief can reach 3,000 feet and slightly more
in the case of the highest peaks . The Burroughs range in the Catskills comes
to mind. But t hese latter mountain regions are roughly comparable. To be fair,
w e'd also need to include some areas in West Virginia , but I'm less familiar
with West Virginia's 'tall' peaks.
The lack of understanding and appreciation for eastern summits often stems
from invalid comparisons. But , this occurs for western summits as well. Trails
to the tops of well known summits can begin half way up the mountain, allowing
a hiker or climber to claim that he/she climbed the mountain when he/she
climbed half the mountain - or less. Establishing the base of a mountain at the
bottom of the fi nal rise is a ridiculous practice of some hikers and writers -
very, very misleading. The Peak Baggers have devised a system of peak by peak
comparison for vertical relief. They are the reaal experts.
Different methods of comparison can be applied to judge the vertical
relief of mountains. For me, I like to use the visual impressiveness of a
mountain or mountain range as seen from different distances. I especially enjoy
viewing the vertical relief that a mountain or range attains from the
surrounding lowlands so that I see the full vertical sweep of the peaks.
However, l ots of foot hills stretched over a long horizontal distance can
reduce the visual impressiveness of a range. Conversely, s ome foothills can
set the stage, so to speak, for the bigger peaks beyond.
The western side of the Great Smokies rise from foothills that are
between 1,500 and 2,000 feet above sea level. Spots along the water courses are
even lower. The tops of the Smokies reach to a maximum height of 6,643 feet at
Clingman's Dome. Mt. Guyot is second at 6,621 feet. Mt Leconte is third at
6,593 feet. These peaks and other 6,000-footers along the crest of the Smokies
rise between 4,500 and 5,000 feet above the basal foothills. They are
western-sized mountains. The highest peaks of the Whites in New Hampshire
provide almost as much relief and are generally steeper sided, giving the
appearance of being higher.
The high peaks of the Rockies generally rise from 4,000 to 7,000 feet
above their basal lowlands . In terms of vertical relief as seen at a distance,
the Front Range in Colorado, the Bigh orns in Wyoming, and the Wasatch in Utah
have impressive base to summit rises, with about a thousand foot difference
between each, i.e. 9,000 feet for the Front Range's highest summits, 8,000 feet
for the Bighorn high summits, and 7,000 for the Wasatch. The Tetons in Wyoming
and the Sangre de Cristo, La Platas, San Juans, and Sawatch in Colorado are
more more on the order of 6,000 to 6,500 feet.
In judging impressiveness, t he Tetons and Sangres haved no foothills.
They are really 'in your face' mountains and can through you off in judging
what you have to climb. The eye and brain do a lot of work to bring the
proportions together and make them understandable.
As Don Bertolette has pointed out in his examples, the peaks of
California and the volcanoes of the Pacific NW go off the charts in terms of
vertical relief. San Jacinto in southern California rises very abruptly 10,800
feet above the desert floor. When I spent several months at March AFB in 1966,
I viisted those huge mountains. The enormous vertical relief initially confused
me until I realized how much mountain I was looking at and got my brain to
assess the proportions better.
Of course, visual appeal of mountains is in the eyes of the beholder. A
beautifully contoured mountain rising abruptly 2,000 feet above its base can
be as attractive as much larger mountains. I like them all.
BTW, congrats on the movie deal.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "JamesRobertSmith" <[email protected]>
To: "ENTSTrees" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:22:18 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [ENTS] Re: Catskills
Absolutely gorgeous photos!
I love our eastern peaks. I meet up with a lot of hikers from out west
that I call "mountain snobs". They don't consider our mountains to be
anything other than hills. I point out to them that the 13K-foot peak
they climbed only has 2500 feet of relief, but this matters not at all
to them. I've stood on many mountains in Virginia that have as much
vertical relief as Half Dome in Yosemite. But they wouldn't admit that
those Virgina summits are mountains.
Alas.
At any rate, those are great photos. One of these days I hope to hike
in the Catskills, too.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to [email protected]
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
