Lee- As Aldo Leopold opined, we should "...think like a mountain..." -Don
> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:32:18 -0500 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: [ENTS] Re: Catskills > > > Bob: > > When I saw your pictures of the Catskills, I thought, there are > mountains with real character and elegant rounded shapes resulting from > a few hundred million years of graceful aging. They have not quite > reached the dignified state of the Porcupine Mountains in Michigan and > Sawtooth Mountains in Minnesota, that used to rival the Himalayas, but > have undergone a billion years of erosion to end up being about 1500 > feet higher than their base, but the Catskills are almost there. > Old-growth mountains such as the Porkies have a lot of character, and > they don't block the view of the sky (and approaching tornadoes) like > juvenile mountains such as the Rockies. Besides that, in the northern > Midwest we can get 20 feet of snow in the winter and Siberian > temperatures without resorting to excessive elevation. > > Lee > > PS--speaking of approaching tornadoes, the Kandiyohi Elm forest in > Minnesota narrowly escaped being leveled by a tornado AGAIN on Tuesday. > They sure get a lot of tornadoes west of Minneapolis. No wonder the > first settlers out there lived in dugout houses with sod roofs. > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > 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. The 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 these latter mountain regions are roughly comparable. To > > be fair, we'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 final > > 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, lots of foot hills > > stretched over a long horizontal distance can reduce the visual > > impressiveness of a range. Conversely, some 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 Bighorns 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, the 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
