Lowest elevation areas with serious mountaineering

[Tim A]

I’ve enjoyed bagging peaks in Glacier NP this summer. Most of them sit in the 7000‘-9000’ range, with trailheads around 4000’. The scale of the peaks surpasses nearly everything that can be seen in CO in terms of prominence and 90% of them feature some kind of scrambling, many of them for several thousand vertical feet. The rock is generally shitty glacial shale and makes the Elks look pretty solid by comparison. Probably a good combination of choices for a family looking for different lengths of approaches/lengths of climbs to whatever suits the ability level of the kids. The beauty of this area of Northern Montana is really something.

[JaredJohnson]

Thanks for all the information and ideas! I am definitely going to look hard at the cascades, Idaho (sawtooth range seems to be the thing), and Montana. To clarify, although international destinations look fantastic we aren't in an economic class where flying and lodging a family of 6 even domestically feels like a good use of our money, so we generally plan more along the lines of places we can drive to and do a lot of car camping, with a night or three at the cheapest lodgings we can find that still have a hot tub (:

Although it almost goes without saying, we are not planning to take baby to any summits, so how high things get isn't important so much as how high it gets while goofing around nearby. Still we would definitely look for some long, scenic, non technical hikes to bring baby on my back along with all the other kids (ages 6 thru 14).

Also I realize "serious mountaineering" is a pretty ambiguous description. The best way to describe the seriousness is to say that if we were in CO, I'd be looking to do either the bells traverse, LB west ridge direct + Blanca traverse, or the mohling traverse; my wife would probably be looking to do the crestone traverse; and I'd be giving the decalibron a shot with my 11-year-old. We'd likely turn the approaches to those objectives into variable-length family hikes, with younger party splitting up and heading back after 4-24 hours depending on when they get tired or bored. We took the whole family plus our husky on the woods lake approach to Navajo basin and then camped there one night, with the idea I'd try el diente to Wilson on my own. it was fabulous but also we decided the high pass was a bit much to make the kids repeat so I skipped the peaks, everyone else took the standard approach down and I went back to woods lake to get the car and pick them up. Everyone had fun even though the road to the standard TH did kill a tire, we drove to town on a doughnut and slept in the car that night!

Even the most spicy activities above would probably be smirked at by some serious mountaineers; and maybe aspired to by other folks that I would still consider to be serious mountaineers. I guess I use the term to describe folks who always pack a headlamp and aren't fooling around or looking to kill an afternoon in between theme parks (:

[Mark Curtis]

I’ve enjoyed bagging peaks in Glacier NP this summer. Most of them sit in the 7000‘-9000’ range, with trailheads around 4000’. The scale of the peaks surpasses nearly everything that can be seen in CO in terms of prominence and 90% of them feature some kind of scrambling, many of them for several thousand vertical feet. The rock is generally shitty glacial shale and makes the Elks look pretty solid by comparison. Probably a good combination of choices for a family looking for different lengths of approaches/lengths of climbs to whatever suits the ability level of the kids. The beauty of this area of Northern Montana is really something.

Very cool you spent the summer in Glacier climbing! And I agree their prominence and beauty if something to behold.

However, I would wonder about the "makes the Elks look pretty solid by comparison". Not questioning whether Glacier isn't super rotten. In fact, I know they are infamous for just that. But I checked your peak list for reference. You only have Castle on your list of 14ers, and none in the Elks on your 13er list. Wondering if you shouldn't climb the Bells, Pyramid, Thunder Pyramid, etc. before hitching your wagon to that comparison being so clearly defined?

Also, the San Miguels are quite rotten as well. Guessing a lot if it is perspective from climbing routes too. 14ers typically having more loose stuff knocked off, so as a result might be perceived to be somewhat less rotten.

[constipated_pete]

I’ve enjoyed bagging peaks in Glacier NP this summer. Most of them sit in the 7000‘-9000’ range, with trailheads around 4000’. The scale of the peaks surpasses nearly everything that can be seen in CO in terms of prominence and 90% of them feature some kind of scrambling, many of them for several thousand vertical feet. The rock is generally shitty glacial shale and makes the Elks look pretty solid by comparison. Probably a good combination of choices for a family looking for different lengths of approaches/lengths of climbs to whatever suits the ability level of the kids. The beauty of this area of Northern Montana is really something.

Very cool you spent the summer in Glacier climbing! And I agree their prominence and beauty if something to behold.

However, I would wonder about the "makes the Elks look pretty solid by comparison". Not questioning whether Glacier isn't super rotten. In fact, I know they are infamous for just that. But I checked your peak list for reference. You only have Castle on your list of 14ers, and none in the Elks on your 13er list. Wondering if you shouldn't climb the Bells, Pyramid, Thunder Pyramid, etc. before hitching your wagon to that comparison being so clearly defined?

Also, the San Miguels are quite rotten as well. Guessing a lot if it is perspective from climbing routes too. 14ers typically having more loose stuff knocked off, so as a result might be perceived to be somewhat less rotten.

EXPOSED

[nyker]

+1 for the NE

To not deal with the higher altitude but still have plenty of mountains to climb and not break the bank, head east...NH, NY, VT, ME, or down south to NC. For more technical rock, visit the Gunks.
To increase the challenge, come in Winter/Spring to the northeast to do some ice climbs, waterfall climbs, slides or combination ski mountaineering, snowshoeing, X-country, etc.

[dan0rama]

Very cool you spent the summer in Glacier climbing! And I agree their prominence and beauty if something to behold.

However, I would wonder about the "makes the Elks look pretty solid by comparison". Not questioning whether Glacier isn't super rotten. In fact, I know they are infamous for just that. But I checked your peak list for reference. You only have Castle on your list of 14ers, and none in the Elks on your 13er list. Wondering if you shouldn't climb the Bells, Pyramid, Thunder Pyramid, etc. before hitching your wagon to that comparison being so clearly defined?

Also, the San Miguels are quite rotten as well. Guessing a lot if it is perspective from climbing routes too. 14ers typically having more loose stuff knocked off, so as a result might be perceived to be somewhat less rotten.

wow A+ for being so subtly condescending and mildly passive aggressive that I had to read it twice before realizing it was a huge burn!

though I am unclear as to whether you've been to Glacier NP and disagree with this comparison, or you agree with this comparison but don't like that he made the comparison without enough experience in the Elks

[Scott P]

However, I would wonder about the "makes the Elks look pretty solid by comparison". Not questioning whether Glacier isn't super rotten. In fact, I know they are infamous for just that. But I checked your peak list for reference. You only have Castle on your list of 14ers, and none in the Elks on your 13er list. Wondering if you shouldn't climb the Bells, Pyramid, Thunder Pyramid, etc. before hitching your wagon to that comparison being so clearly defined?

Maybe he just heard it from someone else. I have heard the same thing repeated on the forums and have had friends say that as well. Since several people who have experience in both areas have said something similar, I see no reason to doubt that there is some truth in the statements.

[Scott P]

Thanks for all the information and ideas! I am definitely going to look hard at the cascades, Idaho (sawtooth range seems to be the thing), and Montana.

If you get time off in Fall through Spring, I'd recommending not passing on the desert peaks as well. Desert mountaineering is pretty interesting too and there are lots of good peaks.

329662.jpg (98.2 KiB) Viewed 1524 times

1068036.jpg (184.26 KiB) Viewed 1524 times

[Mark Curtis]

Very cool you spent the summer in Glacier climbing! And I agree their prominence and beauty if something to behold.

However, I would wonder about the "makes the Elks look pretty solid by comparison". Not questioning whether Glacier isn't super rotten. In fact, I know they are infamous for just that. But I checked your peak list for reference. You only have Castle on your list of 14ers, and none in the Elks on your 13er list. Wondering if you shouldn't climb the Bells, Pyramid, Thunder Pyramid, etc. before hitching your wagon to that comparison being so clearly defined?

Also, the San Miguels are quite rotten as well. Guessing a lot if it is perspective from climbing routes too. 14ers typically having more loose stuff knocked off, so as a result might be perceived to be somewhat less rotten.

wow A+ for being so subtly condescending and mildly passive aggressive that I had to read it twice before realizing it was a huge burn!

though I am unclear as to whether you've been to Glacier NP and disagree with this comparison, or you agree with this comparison but don't like that he made the comparison without enough experience in the Elks

Thanks. No burn intended. And, yes....the latter is probably the closest if I were to clarify. Though, I wouldn't say I "don't like that"...it doesn't matter that much to me. And the OP can certainly post his view with whatever degree of relative comparison he deems sufficient. I was just suggesting a more thorough assessment might be in order.

I have been to Glacier and hiked at relatively lower elevations....my experiences climbing there are nil. So I am not disputing the assertion directly. What I do have is extensive experiences in the Elk Range, and I know it is not holistically represented by Castle Peak. And while there are some objective ways to measure such things, so much of a human assessment is based on subjective criterion. So my first thought was....how much climbing have you done in the Elks to make a subjective judgment on its relative degree of looseness?

Not asking for a concession here, I am making a point about blanket statements. Though, to be fair....most of us have done similar comparisons based on limited experiences with one side or the other. Right?

[Mark Curtis]

However, I would wonder about the "makes the Elks look pretty solid by comparison". Not questioning whether Glacier isn't super rotten. In fact, I know they are infamous for just that. But I checked your peak list for reference. You only have Castle on your list of 14ers, and none in the Elks on your 13er list. Wondering if you shouldn't climb the Bells, Pyramid, Thunder Pyramid, etc. before hitching your wagon to that comparison being so clearly defined?

Maybe he just heard it from someone else. I have heard the same thing repeated on the forums and have had friends say that as well. Since several people who have experience in both areas have said something similar, I see no reason to doubt that there is some truth in the statements.

Fair enough.

[nyker]

In around Las Vegas actually has some good lower peaks as well, though like Scott mentions, off season would be better especially for the lower ones due to the oppressive heat in late Spring to early Fall.

[jibler]

The Flatiron east of phoenix is pretty badass





and the actual Flatiron itself reminds me of something from Tolkien