State Highpoints

[pizza]

I'd probably call Highpointing & travel goal for people who like being fit (As Pizza mentioned no easy way up ID, AK, WA, CA, NV, AZ, WY & CO high points) & who think traveling to each MLB or NFL park is a fat man's travel goal. (or a real fan of the games goal)

heh.. define "easy"..

there is no road to take you to those highpoints.. and by those standards you can add (this is off the top of my head): Maine, New York, Maryland, Virginia, Connecticut, Louisiana, Illinois (1-mile road is private, you have to walk), Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Montana, and Oregon.

Many of these are easy hikes, but you've gotta hike 'em..

A road will take you about a half-mile from Arkansas & Michigan, too..

 

[Mike P.]

On a hiking bulletin board a road walk has to be considered easy.

I don't know if I'd call CT hard, it's a decent hike from NY trailhead & over Brace + log book is at Frissell summit (or it used to be) while coming from other side you can use the Mt. Washington Road which is much higher up although you then have to hike up the steep side of Round Mt. (a couple of hundred feet or so) & then up the steep side of Frissell (in MA) & then down to the marker.

Hard time thinking LA would be hard, it's only a few hundred feet. (off the top of my head I'm thinking 545 or just over 600) - (I looked 535 per Rand McNally)

Hood you could take a chair (tram?) up the Mountain. It does not go to the top. What I don't know is how much you would have left or if the chair would put you on even the right side of the pountain for hiking.

 

[pizza]

On a hiking bulletin board a road walk has to be considered easy.

I don't know if I'd call CT hard, it's a decent hike from NY trailhead & over Brace + log book is at Frissell summit (or it used to be) while coming from other side you can use the Mt. Washington Road which is much higher up although you then have to hike up the steep side of Round Mt. (a couple of hundred feet or so) & then up the steep side of Frissell (in MA) & then down to the marker.

Hard time thinking LA would be hard, it's only a few hundred feet. (off the top of my head I'm thinking 545 or just over 600) - (I looked 535 per Rand McNally)

Hood you could take a chair (tram?) up the Mountain. It does not go to the top. What I don't know is how much you would have left or if the chair would put you on even the right side of the pountain for hiking.

I'm thinking more along the lines of the distance, not elevation.. CT was 3-4 miles RT by the route I took.. Louisiana was about two miles RT. Hood has a chairlift at TimberLine, but it opens too late and doesn't take you very far up. Climbers normally arrive at the summit a couple of hours after dawn at the latest.. The snow softens up later in the morning, causing dangerous conditions.

Even if the chair opened up early enough, you'd still be dealing with technical glacier travel, at least a couple thousand feet of gain and exposure..

 

[freeheelwilly]

Remember, not all state highpoints are mountains, and not all are remote enough to need to hike to. Therefore, I don't think that state highpointing is inherently a hiker's endeavor, necessarily.

If you want to do all of 'em it sure is - in fact it's a bit more than just a "hikers' endevour", no? This points up what nobody here has discussed yet: What about Alaska? To complete the 50 you'd have to bag Denali. Not an any task, logistically, physically or financially.

 

[Greg]

If you want to do all of 'em it sure is - in fact it's a bit more than just a "hikers' endevour", no? This points up what nobody here has discussed yet: What about Alaska? To complete the 50 you'd have to bag Denali. Not an any task, logistically, physically or financially.

Touché :beer:

 

[Mike P.]

Pizza,

Good points on Hood, although I'd have to say 3-4 miles RT in CT is easy when compared to the Western Peaks or Katahdin, 4miles in CT shouldn't take anyone more than two or three hours & that's generous, IMO.

If one had a bunch of money you could (some of these probably would) hire guides for Rainier & Denali (I suspect Hood also)

What would be the higher peaks out west most people do not (or can not) hire guides for? I've read my share of TR's from Whitney so I know that many do that on their own (with permit of course) & I don't recall reading any AZ or NV high point reports mentioning guides but what about WY, MT, CO & others. I've only read one or two UT & NM trips, what about those?

 

[Mark S]

Granite Peak, Montana; Gannett Peak, Wyoming; Mount Rainier, Washington; Mount Hood, Oregon and Denali are the five highpoints that are considered to be on a different level from all the rest. Everything else is hikable although you can take more difficult routes if you choose on some. NM (via Bull-of-the-Woods) and CO are long hikes (I have them planned for September) but no more "difficult" than Katahdin or Marcy. Borah, Idaho and King's Peak, Utah are usually done as overnight backpacks but nothing technical. AZ is also a long hike and NV is a scree scramble (probably Class 2).

Back to the tough five ... Granite has a brief section of vertical rock while the other four mentioned involve glacier travel. I'm just finally getting into the western HPs with my next trip in a couple of months ... got the rest of the country licked. Cheers.

 

[pizza]

Pizza,

Good points on Hood, although I'd have to say 3-4 miles RT in CT is easy when compared to the Western Peaks or Katahdin, 4miles in CT shouldn't take anyone more than two or three hours & that's generous, IMO.

If one had a bunch of money you could (some of these probably would) hire guides for Rainier & Denali (I suspect Hood also)

What would be the higher peaks out west most people do not (or can not) hire guides for? I've read my share of TR's from Whitney so I know that many do that on their own (with permit of course) & I don't recall reading any AZ or NV high point reports mentioning guides but what about WY, MT, CO & others. I've only read one or two UT & NM trips, what about those?

Sure CT is easy.. my point was that you couldn't drive your car within a mile of it.

Anyway, guides.

You could hire a guide for any and all of the western peaks. You can hire a guide for the eastern anthills, too. If you want to pay someone to show you how to get to highpoint, nj, I'm sure someone would be willing to take your money.

The better question is which peaks are typically climed with guides?

Generally speaking, people don't hire guides for peaks that are non-technical. Whitney (CA), Boundary (NV), Humphreys (AZ), Wheeler (NM), Kings (UT), Borah (ID), and Elbert (CO). They're all hikes or backpacks, the most difficult aspect being scree (especially NV,UT) and exposure (ID).

People commonly hire guides for Denali (AK), Ranier (WA), Hood (OR) - and less commonly for Gannet (WY) and Granite (MT). AK, WA, and OR are glacial peaks where climbing teams rope themselves to each other for crevasse rescue. WY has some glacial features and frozen couliers that must be climbed. MT has some "easy" 5th class rock climbing, but at 12000 feet with exposure that I understand to be unreal.

Guides to not make a climb physically easier.. you still have to go up under your own strength. What they do is help make sure you don't get lost, hurt, or killed. Many will hold a 1-2 day "clinic" on glacier travel and crevasse rescue, as well as self-arrest, crampon use, etc., before the climb. For Denali, most guides require at least moderate experience with glacier travel..

 

[Mike P.]

I think the one big advantage a guide provides is decision making based on years (usually) of experience.

There was a resuce conducted on Mt. Washington (NH) several years ago in October where a hiker went up solo on a cold rainy October day. His partner canceled which should have signaled something, he had knee surgery earlier that year & while ascending the Trail, either TRT or Lion's Head his knee was troublesome so he opted to descend a different route which meant significantly more above treeline exposure. As often is the case on a 40 degree rainy day at PNVC, once he got up higher the weather got worse & it was snow & ice he was fighting not rain. He used his "Easy Button" to call for a rescue which almost did not go because the conditions were dangerous to the team & once up there they were getting ready to leave due to conditions when one of the group found the man.

He said he was experienced due to completing 2 of the 7 summits (Kili & Aconagua I believe) & completing a couple of hikes in CO. He said all major CO peaks but I never could get out of him if that meant he did the 54 14k's or just Elbert & Longs. The two Highpoints & Longs could have been done with guides, Elbert too I guess. My point is his decision making on Washington was really bad.

* rainy 40 degree days in October at 2,000 feet are not good days to travel up Washington
* Partner canceling due to conditions, (I susepct it was windy up top all day)
* not turning back when the knee first became an issue
* picking an escape route in bad weather that involved well over a mile of above treeline travel
* not having enough gear to withstand bad conditions when planning an October hike in the rain on a cold day & one of the worst weather places is your destination. (On a summer day without rain & having enough to weather a 30 degree night would be okay - that does not happen in Mid-October)

Glacier travel is a different animal for sure, having knowledge or knowledgable partners (or guides) is a smart way to go.

 

[Mark S]

So what's your point? That highpointers have bad judgement? Seems like a huge jump of faith to make based on the experience of one person on one highpoint.

 

[pizza]

It sounds like the guy just underestimated Mt. Washington.
After climbing a couple of 20,000 ft peaks, it's easy to think 6000 is nothing.

 

[Mike P.]

Pizza, I agree he underestimated his hike on that day, Why is the opinion I'm trying to state. (Opinion, my thoughts based on the facts as I understand them being 200 miles away when it too place7 or 8 years ago! - A co-worker also had a saying for Opinions, they are like _____ everyone has one & they all stink)

I think he underestimated his trip that day because on big trips he never made the decisions, the guides did. While In the scope of mountaineering, Washington is not a big trip but when you factor in the time of year & weather he encountered at the start & the well earned reputation of the mountain in that weather, it was(& is) a much different trip than doing it in Mid-July with 0% of rain

Mark, I'm not saying that at all, the people I know & have met that do highpoints usually do fine. If I'm picking on anyone, it would be people who don't plan or take part in the planning of there own hikes. (Whether that is always using a guide or letting your friends/spouse plan the trip & you just follow along)

The person I described was not a State Highpointer & to the best of my knowledge he had no ambition to finish the 7 Summits. IMO the two he did (if you count Indonesia not Austrailia) are the two easiest when you factor in elevation, overall cost, climbing, temperture, political climate of the country where the peak is located & all the other logistics. (The two peaks + Oriziba & another Europe trip are the fantasy peaks/trips on my own wish list outside of the US)

 

[Mark S]

Okay, so I see you're saying and it is a good point. But it gets back to what I said earlier in the thread ... how other people choose to attain highpoints has no effect on me so who am I to slam others for using guides if they feel they need them. Part of my goal is to do all 50 without guides, but we'll just have to see how that goes. I'm just plugging along one trip at a time and thoroughly enjoying every aspect of it, including planning (which is one of the most enjoyable parts of it). Ironically, I kind of feel like a bit of a guide for my father who has joined me on my last 16 HPs. He's not an experienced outdoorsman at all but is having a blast. He's 67 and my mother keeps making me promise not to kill him! It will be interesting to see how it goes on Texas, Colorado and New Mexico on our next trip.

 

[Mike P.]

It's okay if they use guides, I would recommend people still pay attention to the decison making though. A friend of my brother was on a Denali trip a few years ago & the group decided to retreat even though the guide wanted to go up the mountain.

 

[pizza]

IMO the two he did (if you count Indonesia not Austrailia) are the two easiest when you factor in elevation, overall cost, climbing, temperture, political climate of the country where the peak is located & all the other logistics.

I thought you said he did Aconcagua and Kili?
Don't be mistaken - aconcagua is not one of the two easiest.. which wouldn't be saying much, because kili isn't exactly a walk in the park either.


A good guide would teach you to be self-sufficient.. sounds like this guy had either bad guides, or underestimated the mountain by not bringing the gear he needed to survive a storm (or both.)

I would prefer not to pay a guide on some of the technical western peaks, but I wouldn't hesitate to do so if I wasn't with a sufficiently experienced friend(s) that I could learn from.

 

[Mark S]

Gotta agree with Mike there, pizza. Everest, Denali, Elbrus, Carstenz and Vinson are probably all more difficult than Aconcogua and Kili. Not that any are easy by any stretch ... guides or not. Interesting that we should be talking about guides and the 7 summits though. Dick Bass was the first to complete them and he was guided every step of the way ... although he did the Kosciusko version.

 

[pizza]

Gotta agree with Mike there, pizza. Everest, Denali, Elbrus, Carstenz and Vinson are probably all more difficult than Aconcogua and Kili. Not that any are easy by any stretch ... guides or not. Interesting that we should be talking about guides and the 7 summits though. Dick Bass was the first to complete them and he was guided every step of the way ... although he did the Kosciusko version.

elbrus (which can be driven up in a land rover) is harder than aconcagua?
carstenz involves some technical rock-climbing and logistical problems, but harder than aconcagua?


the climb up the north face is non-technical, but at 22,800 feet, it takes a while to properly acclimate - normally there's three camps.

 

[Mark S]

48 people died in the Mount Elbrus area in 2004 alone. The weather is ferocious and like Washington, many go expecting a walk in the park only to be rudely awakened. Your Land Rover link is a little silly, don't you think? Of course, having done none of them and only aspiring to Denali at this point, this is a debate that I don't really want to get into.

http://www.summitpost.org/mountain/rock/150255/mount-elbrus.html

Cheers.

 

[Mike P.]

A non-technical trip, even at 22,800 which is high but outside of the death zone would be easier, IMO. I'd pick a local guide or a group from US that does Himalaya so they would know area & high altitude techniques

(I also listed other factors besides elevation, getting to Cartenz & the polictical/religious climate are worse although there is some crime in SA, Cost is also reasonable for SA)

I wouldn't climb anything I was unfamilar with that is any harder than Humphrey's with Dick Bass, I'd prefer doing it solo than with him too. Now if he was going to give me some tips for getting rich, that I'd listen too or recommendations for a guide.