More North Cascades trivia

[Dru]

's Thumb

[Cpt.Caveman]

Harry,

 

When you refer to my comments you have made several assumptions. The peaks I propose names for are not in the Cascades as mentioned above.

 

Also - when I say arrogant I did not alienate anyone. I am using in the term not calling the climbers arrogant. I think you have read into it a bit.

 

If you are suggesting that a first-ascent party does not have a right to name a previously unnamed peak or crag, then I think Fred would likely want to have a long talk with you when he returns, starting with "Crooked Thumb" on July 10, 1940. I do not think that Fred or other first-ascent parties would appreciate being referred to as "arrogant" when it comes to their right to naming peaks in this manner.

 

There is nothing for me to discuss.

 

As far as the corrections for fred's work that seems important. But let's not be so charging and defiant about his progress in compiling what is in fact an in depth guidebook for our range. Give the man some respect. You seem to be at the ready to make critical jabs without care.

 

Whether there is some animosity or difference you two may have is up to you. I dont really care.

 

-RB

 

 

[klenke]

Ray said, "Whether there is some animosity or difference you two may have is up to you. I dont really care."

 

Well, you must care because you felt the need to stick up for your idol and personal friend in your last post.

 

I am damn thankful to Fred for his CAG guides. Be that as it may, I certainly don't worship the guy. I felt no need to shake his hand when I first came to be in his presence at a Pub Club. If it had not been Beckey who wrote the guidebooks, I'm sure someone else would have. Whether or not that other person would have done a better job is debatable. I would have to say he/she probably wouldn't have been as thorough as Beckey. That notwithstanding, the guidebooks Beckey has put out are not infallible. There are errors in it. These errors need to be fixed. They will be fixed in due time. Since the Cascades are a huge range of many mountains with many approaches and climbing possibilities, I do cut Beckey a fair measure of slack. With all that information to organize, he's bound to have slipped up here and there.

[Cpt.Caveman]

 

Ray said, "Whether there is some animosity or difference you two may have is up to you. I dont really care."

 

Well, you must care because you felt the need to stick up for your idol and personal friend in your last post.

 

I guess you are right. However Fred is not here to defend himself while discussion goes on and assumptions are made that may not necessarily be true.

 

I agree with your other comments.

[Tod]

The heart of the matter is whether or not the original names for Ragged Ridge should have been used, honored and respected in the manner that the first ascent parties intended.

 

-Do first ascent parties have the absolute right to name a peak?

I don’t think first ascent parties have the absolute right to name a peak, but in cases where they are the people who brought the attention and detail of a peak to the world (such as by climbing or exploring), then yes there is an unwritten right. I am sure the U.S. Board of Geographic Names has set rules that I don’t know of, but it seems legit to respect the names given by the people who became intimate with the said mountain first. Many explorers, settlers, prospectors, and surveyors have claimed rights to name peaks, and in most cases have done so in a respectful way. Other times, people have knowingly (and unknowingly) taken the right themselves to rename peaks. Take Mt. Rainier or Mt. McKinley for example:

 

Rainier was named in 1792 by the explorer Capt. George Vancouver for Rear Adm. Peter Rainier (who never saw the mountain). The original native names of Tahoma, Tacobet, Tuwouk and Tacoba were never applied (even though the city of Tacoma fought for decades to get the name changed to the “original” name of Tacoma). The question of Rainier’s name went before arbiters at the U.S. Board of Geographic Names three times, in 1890, 1917 and 1924 without any change.

 

Mt. McKinley was (re)named by the Princeton graduate and gold prospector, William Dickey in 1896, however the original native name of Denali has never been officially applied even though Hudson Stuck of the first ascent party (re)named the peak Denali in 1913.

 

-Do names have to be inspiring or fitting in order to be valid?

This is really a grey issue being that “inspiring” is a personal judgement. Names describing the shape of a mountain like Hogsback or Flattop are not that inspiring to me, but they seem fitting. Names of peaks named after people such as Mt. Adams, Mt. Logan, Jack Mtn are not inspiring to me either, but due to history and tenure, they fit and are accepted. I think the real deciding factor, does the person given the “right” to name the peak feel it is a fitting name (and does the U.S. Board of Geographic Names accept the name).

 

In the case of Ragged Ridge, this has more to do with respecting the original climbers decided peak names as they were the first ones who brought the attention and detail of these peaks to climbers and general public of the Northwest. Regardless of whether the names are fitting, the original names should not have changed. It seems to be a case of artistic license when the CAG was written, and something that was disrespectful and should not have been accepted by the U.S. Board of Geographic Names.

 

Being that topographic maps, and guidebooks are rapidly changing (with technology quickly changing how we see and view the world, nothing is left for granted), it seems to be a opportune time to petition the change of these peaks names back to the original names. How is this done effectively?

 

[klenke]

Good points, Tod. However, I would like to qualify that the naming of peaks that went on prior to the advent of mountaineering is not really germane to the debate here regarding FA naming rights.

 

Back in the 18th and 19th Centuries, only those commonly seen peaks were named (for point of reference purposes). These were usually the most prominent peaks such as Baker, Rainier, and maybe Mt. Pilchuck. Captain Vancouver and his compatriots certainly didn't care to name this little blip or that little blip on the mountainous horizon (blips such as Big Bear Mountain south of Three Fingers or even Mt. Si).

 

Over the years of the last Century, peak naming has progressed downward to less and less prominent peaks. First it was the real big boys who were given names (Rainier and Baker). Next it was high peaks around mining areas (peaks in the Monte Cristo area, for example). Then, with mountaineering coming vogue in the 30's, noteworthy peaks on the horizon as seen from other peaks by those early climbers were named (can't think of an example). The next wave of naming came with Beckey and all his FAs of peaks all over the place (Snagtooth Ridge peaks, for example). The most recent wave could perhaps be attributable to the likes of the Fireys and John Roper (Genius Peak south of Dumbell, for example). These most recent names are for peaks of even less prominence (Beckey's many crag names notwithstanding). In the next wave of naming (new names, not renaming), what is left? Of course it would have to be ridge blips of even less prominence, for they are all that is left to be named (in the explored areas of the Cascades, at least). There are plenty of unnamed and unclimbed peaks in northern B.C.. The naming revolution has only just begun for these.

[Dru]

What is the point of naming anyway?

 

In my point of view it is to distinguish between peaks. For instance giving Sherman Pk a separate name from Baker.

 

If you don't climb separating out the different peaks and naming them individually is not so important. The Chilliwack natives called the whole Border Peaks area "Putlushgohap" or "Tomyhoi" according to good ol' Henry Custer whose adventures I am now devouring (thanks Harry!). Now we have five separate peak names in there, ABP, CBP, Larrabee, Pleiades and Tomyhoi itself. (And Petlushkwohap is up near sKihist in the Fraser Canyon )

 

So basically my view is that it's OK to name anything with a distinct route to the summit. No matter how much "prominence" or other arbitrary criteria, the summit has.

 

As for new names: what are the most overused mountain names? Around here there are TOO MANY Red, Green, Goat, Bear, Needle, and Cathedral peaks. NO MORE!

[Stefan]

I would like to keep the Native Americans names for the mountains. Like Tahoma.

 

The names would be a small connection to a history before the white man.

 

Did the Native Americans name any of the mountains along Ragged Ridge?

[Dru]

What about: Names like Sem7Am (the 7 is a glottal stop), Xwitaoz, or Xit'olacw? They are very hard to pronounce for an English speaker. Should we use these names or make the "official" name an Anglicized phoneticization? Like "Tomyhoi" for instance. You can look up the actually used Halqomelym spelling in the Sto:Lo Historical Atlas - it isnt Tomyhoi. Its got a couple of those diacritical marks and weird aspirated h-sounding x'es in it too. How "Native American" do you want to get? The real deal or some 18th century European explorer's misspelling of the Native name?

[Tod]

Tod said:

The heart of the matter is whether or not the original names for Ragged Ridge should have been used, honored and respected in the manner that the first ascent parties intended...

 

...In the case of Ragged Ridge, this has more to do with respecting the original climbers decided peak names as they were the first ones who brought the attention and detail of these peaks to climbers and general public of the Northwest. Regardless of whether the names are fitting, the original names should not have changed. It seems to be a case of artistic license when the CAG was written, and something that was disrespectful and should not have been accepted by the U.S. Board of Geographic Names.

 

I still go back to the my points above: Mainly, should the original names of the Ragged Ridge peaks be used, honored and respected in the manner that the first ascent parties intended?

 

If there were native names for these peaks as Stefan points out, then I would lean towards those names, however being the remote peaks they are, I doubt it. Being that there were still many peaks to be climbed in the Cascades in the late 60's, a few parties made the climbs of these unnamed peaks, got the FA's and named them. Why didn't the original names stick and why would the names be changed?

[Dru]

The reason there is a standing committee on permanent geographic names, is so that people don't automatically get to name something whatever they want. in essence it is to protect us from boring names like "Holyoke". the committee is supposed to evaluate proposals for new names and accept them if there is a strong rationale for the name, or reject it if there is already a better name (like a native name) or if it duplicates an existing name (Red Mountain aside obviously) or for similar reasons such as obscenity or political incorrectness or whatever.

[forrest_m]

i apologize in advance for the long post, i kept thinking of new things...

 

Stefan said:

I would like to keep the Native Americans names for the mountains. Like Tahoma.

 

According to Bruce Barcott's "The Measure of a Mountain", there are literally dozens of different native words that may have been applied to the mountain. He lists 48 different native words that could be the origin of the "Tahoma/Tacoma" name that we think of as the "native" name, since the word that has come down to us is the transcription by english/spanish/russian/whatever speakers of a word with a strictly oral tradition. Further muddying the waters, there is some doubt whether the leading candidates for this name are of local origin, as some linguists have claimed to trace the Tahoma word to words adopted from east-coast tribes, or even japanese or russian words.

 

From his account, the Geographic Names people were not opposed in principle to renaming Rainier with an appropriate native name, but were simply unconvinced that Tahoma WAS the most commonly used native name in pre-contact times.

 

Re: the renaming of peaks whose naming is of more recent vintage, I agree that the FA parties choice of names for previously-unnamed features should be respected, but not exclusively. I would agree with Dru that really undescriptive feature names are open for debate. For example, I have heard people propose replacing the prosaic "Glacier Peak" with a more meaninful "Mt. Beckey"... In some cases, it is perhaps not necessary to involve the authorities... look at Denali where despite the persistence of the "official" name, nobody refers to it as Mt. McKinley except the park service.

 

On the other hand, I think that we should be somewhat cautious about renaming features that were named after persons. The names might not mean anything to us, but some time in the past, it was given as a memorial to someone and it is abusive to the concept of memorializing to change the name of something just because its namesake has otherwise been forgotten. As has been noted already, many of the native words used as peak names were descriptive terms that didn't necessarily refer to the landmass to which they are currently assigned. I don't think that native names that come to light in latter days necessarily should displace the names of 19th century politicians - both are legitimate history - although I agree that many of the native terms sound more interesting to my ear, regardless of their meaning... Ultimately, I don't think there's a rule that fits and each name should be considered on a case-by-case basis - which is more or less that the geographic names boards do...

 

Re: Harry's position about offensive place names. There is a Dark Creek in Renton that was proposed for a name change a few years ago. Apparently, it had been named in the 1880s for a former slave whose farm was located alongside it, and since the origin of the name was the offensive term "darkie," the wash. st. board. was proposing changing it. However, the descendents of the original farmer were located and objected to the change, arguing that even if the origin of the name was offensive, it was the only extant reminder of their ancestor, and they didn't want it to vanish from the earth. More specifically relating to Harry's comments, I simply don't understand the argument that the trade language itself is somehow an illegitimate source for names in the area where it was once commonly used. I think it is a bit patronizing to assume that the users of a trade language - whether native or not - were some kind of "noble savage" above the use of profanity and sexual innuendo, or somehow unable understand it, or that such language only exists because immoral europeans "bootlegged" it into the trade language.

 

Furthermore, I highly support the long tradition of recognizing the threatening nature of mountains by naming them for devils, monsters, sins, unpleasant emotional states and moral perils. This is as old as mountains (think "eiger").

 

Finally, some disclaimers: I should note that my only source for the Rainier info. is the above-mentioned book, which as far as I can tell is itself based on secondary sources, so this argument may be suspect. Nevertheless, I think it is likely that a peak as prominent as Rainier would have been named by many different tribes. The Dark Creek episode was related by the speaker in a seminar on historic preservation - I'd have to do some research to determine if it is in fact apocryphal, but in any case, the fact that it seems plausible serves to illustrate that these things won't always be obvious.

[HarryMajors]

(1) Several very illuminating and persuasive points are being presented here on this thread. I understand the viewpoints expressed by other persons, I can be moved by convincing evidence and well presented arguments, and I am willing to change my mind as the case may be. Moreover (as demonstrated by Gert Harby's married name), I am more than willing to acknowledge those instances where I have been wrong or have made an error. I am always open to the voice of reason.

 

My own personal opinion with respect to Ragged Ridge has not yet reached a final, definitive stage. It may or may not change in the future. The views of the Northwest climbing community as a whole should also be given serious consideration. This website serves as an important forum of debate for issues such as this.

 

(a) Whether or not one likes the original names; or (b) whether one feels that the Chinook Jargon terms are appropriate and/or offensive; or © whether the names should be removed, and replaced by the original or entirely different names, or the ridge just left a Wilderness blank --- these are three separate issues, each being open to rational debate.

 

An entirely different issue --- and perhaps the most important one here --- is the manner in which the geographic names of the first-ascent parties were treated with disdain. The views of the first-ascent climbers were not treated with particular courtesy and respect, for they were not consulted in advance when the new names were put forth. When these climbers did express their views in the matter, they were then evidently cavalierly dismissed.

 

 

(2) With respect to errors and omissions in CAG --- One reader here on cc.com appears to be a personal friend of Fred, he may perhaps regard Fred in an ideal manner, and he has on several occasions in the past appeared to be a bit defensive of him. This is very noble of this individual. We all should hope that, when we reach Fred's age, we each have a younger person to champion our cause.

 

Fred is a publicly known figure, indeed a prominently known figure in the Northwest mountaineering world. Fred is an historical figure. Fred is also an author. He has published studies in the mountains of the North Cascades, and their history.

 

Fred is a far superior climber than I am, or I can ever hope to be --- But when it comes to the history of exploration and climbing in the North Cascades, we are more evenly matched. Fred is aware of this. He is also aware that 30 years ago I mentioned to him that one day I would likely be writing a biographical study of him.

 

Once authors and prominent figures enter the public limelight --- their actions, and their achievements, and their writings are open to public comment, criticism, and evaluation.

 

I am an author and an historian. I am open to constructive criticism. I welcome it. I also welcome others calling attention to my errors. I do so myself. In the past, I have issued lists of "Additions and Corrections" to my previously published works. I seek the truth.

 

I post here openly, under my own name. I am thus immediately identifiable and accountable.

 

If other individuals detect errors or omissions in my own published works, I invite those individuals to bring these oversights to my attention. I would be grateful for these corrections and additions.

 

It is great-minded of a person to be open to constructive criticism, to be receptive to having their written errors brought to their attention, and to admit when they are wrong.

 

I do not believe it is reasonable to assume that Fred is infallible, or above criticism, or that errors and omissions in his works should be kept concealed. In fact, Fred himself has explicitly stated, in print, that he wants these errors and omissions brought to light.

 

A three-volume climbing guide, containing such massive amounts of information as it does (much of which does not directly pertain to route descriptions), derived from many different sources of varying quality --- is by its very nature expected to contain errors and oversights. It is in the interest of the climbing and historical community to have these errors and oversights brought to their attention, particularly when matters of climbing safety and the public record are involved.

 

If I offer critical commentary concerning CAG or Fred's achievement, I am presenting a glimpse into the future. Long after we of today are gone, future historians and biographers will be presenting critical evaluations of both CAG and Fred. Though some individuals might wish that I be silent now, it will be more difficult to silence those historians and biographers yet to come.

 

My acquaintance with Fred goes back many years, to 1972. In 1974 I submitted a 54-page list of Corrections and Additions to the original 1973 first edition of CAG-1. Fred was evidently not pleased by this --- despite the fact that on page ix of that guide he had explicitly invited the presentation of such information: "it is sincerely hoped new information, missing history, as well as errors discovered, will be sent to The Mountaineers."

 

Fred has thus stated, in print, that he wants the errors and omissions in CAG brought to light.

 

The information contained in that 54-page list was incorporated in subsequent editions of CAG-1, without crediting its source. I interpret this as a sign of Fred's apparent displeasure.

 

As an historian, I can be expected to offer critical evaluation, both positive and negative. But I also make a sincere effort to be fair.

 

 

(3) With respect to pre-existing names for the peaks on Ragged Ridge.

 

I know of no earlier names that had been applied to the separate peaks of Ragged Ridge, or to the entire ridge itself, by Native Americans, or by early trappers and explorers, or miners in the region.

 

Red Mountain, at the west end of Ragged Ridge, was first climbed in 1926 by Lage Wernstedt. There is no record of the peaks east of Red Mountain, on Ragged Ridge, having been climbed prior to the first-ascent parties of 1966, 1968, and 1970.

 

In 1927, Lage Wernstedt introduced the names "Red Mountain" and "Ragged Ridge." These are descriptive names, based upon the appearance of these features

 

The first published reference to these two geographic features, and the first printed appearance of these two names, appears on the 1928 edition of the Forest Service map of the former "Chelan National Forest." At the lower left corner of the map, it states that the map was compiled "by Lage Wernstedt, 1927."

 

This, and the 1931 Forest Service map of the "Mt. Baker National Forest" are two of the epochal and most important maps in the entire history of the North Cascades. On all previous maps, most of the Pasayten and Picket Range area remained blank. Here, for the first time in recorded history, appear dozens of new mountains and other newly named geographic features in the Pasayten and Picket Range.

 

Lage Wernstedt (1878-1959) was the person who created the names: Fury, Terror, Despair, Challenger, Inspiration, Triumph. The name "Picket Range" was his creation. These are inspired place-names, among the finest and most appropriate in the entire Cascade Range. I did not personally know Lage, for he died in 1959 before I was aware of his existence. But I did know his widow, Dottie (Dot Lake is named after her), and she informed me that the Picket Range names were his own creation.

 

For many years Dottie lived alone in a small home on Guemes Island. She showed me the camera Lage had used in mapping the North Cascades, and she took me and Dick McCollum to visit Lage's grave in the little cemetery on Guemes Island.

 

Wernstedt was one of the most remarkable individuals ever associated with the North Cascades. He graduated from the Royal Technological School at Stockholm, with a double degree in Naval Architecture and Mechanical Engineering. In 1905, Lage was one of the first persons to receive a Masters degree from the newly created School of Forestry at Yale University. He was one of the world pioneers in the use of stereo-plotting (photogrammetry) from vertical aerial photographs to prepare topographic maps; and he conducted extensive mapping efforts for the Forest Service in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska. His methods were later used by the Army Mapping Service, and during the Second World War.

 

Wernstedt was also one of the principal individuals associated with the introduction and development of the Forest Service "smokejumpers" method of fighting forest fires.

 

Few individuals today fully realize the magnitude of Wernstedt's climbing and mapping achievement in the North Cascades. For total number of first ascents of major peaks in the North Cascades --- these are substantial, very prominent mountains, not minor technical crags --- Lage Wernstedt holds first place, with 77 first ascents. These include Mt. Logan, Black Peak, Silver Star, Mt. Lago/Lage, and Tomyhoi Peak.

 

Fred comes next, with 52 first ascents of prominent major peaks; followed by Hermann Ulrichs with at least 23.

 

I knew Hermann quite well, for many years. I have been at work on biographical studies on all three individuals. I may, over the coming years, "pre-publish" some information of interest here on cc.com.

[Cpt.Caveman]

Harry Majors said the following quotes-

 

But when it comes to the history of exploration and climbing in the North Cascades, we are more evenly matched. Fred is aware of this.

 

Yes Fred has personally acknowledge you as a good researcher and historian. In fact he brought your name to light without any inquiry on my part when we were in the Monarch Icefields this summer. He really did not have much to say about it other than wondering if you were still around. It was a neat coincidence that just prior to our trip you started posting historical information.

 

I don't want you to be "silent" but I just wanted to be sure that I understand you are not making politically correct attacks and instead making valid conflicts as you have presented well.

 

 

I do not believe it is reasonable to assume that Fred is infallible, or above criticism, or that errors and omissions in his works should be kept concealed. In fact, Fred himself has explicitly stated, in print, that he wants these errors and omissions brought to light.

 

Yes his books have errors and we all know this. Although some can easily call this the job of the author... Climbing is a unique thing and gathering the amount of facts that he has presented\published with respect to coordination with numerous editor mistakes that I have seen him catch and review we should also keep this in mind.

 

Thanks for contributing Harry. I still enjoy your info and do like to poke into your writings that you have sent me and I am happy to read every now and then.

 

-RB

 

[John_Roper]

It should be noted that if the CAGs have errors in route descriptions, the fault is not so much Fred Beckey's. The rare route goofs usually lie with the person whose brain Fred picked. That Fred got it right so often, especially when he'd never been to a particular peak, has always been the thing that has amazed me. Harry, do you have a number as to percentage of peaks listed in the various CAGs that Fred has actually stood atop? It will surprise.

[Cpt.Caveman]

John Roper wrote-

It should be noted that if the CAGs have errors in route descriptions, the fault is not so much Fred Beckey's. The rare route goofs usually lie with the person whose brain Fred picked. That Fred got it right so often, especially when he'd never been to a particular peak, has always been the thing that has amazed me.

 

Yes I believe this to be also correct.

 

I also understand that the relation to names on Ragged Ridge is not necessarily related to this at all. On that note it is too easy to assume in a forum where FB is not available to debate that he disregarded naming conventions inspired by Mr Roper as seemingly suggested until we have some facts and or more information to base that upon.

 

-RB

[Dru]

Errors creep in everywhere.

 

It is nice to acknowledge your sources when correcting - but more important to make the correction. For instance I looked in the red CAG III and notice the reference to Fred gives to Custer's travels through the Chilliwack River area is to Custer's original report and not Harry's issue of NW Discovery.

 

It seems like if Fred visited the archives and referenced the original - it is proper to quote the original source. If all he read was Harry's research of the original source - maybe he should have ref'd Harry. Or at least mentioned him in the "Acknowledgments" section at the front.

 

On the other hand - perhaps there is an element of rivalry or play at work. I once deliberately wrote up a route description incorrectly because I knew no one but Jordan Peters would notice and that it would annoy him

[Cpt.Caveman]

Drew Brayshaw wrote-

 

It seems like if Fred visited the archives and referenced the original - it is proper to quote the original source. If all he read was Harry's research of the original source - maybe he should have ref'd Harry. Or at least mentioned him in the "Acknowledgments" section at the front.

 

In a climbing guide there are lots of areas where information is compiled from sources. It is not always feasible to quote sources. Also in Fred's Range of Glaciers he does give credit to Harry Majors.

 

 On the other hand - perhaps there is an element of rivalry or play at work. 

 

Yes maybe so. I just want to expose this possibility now. I respect, acknowledge and concurr with lots of Mr. Majors reporst and writings. Going back earlier in this thread.. There was some talk about Twin Spires or Twin Peaks.... Do we really consider this situation disdain or disregard? Logically no is my guess.

 

The controversy still exists on the naming at Ragged Ridge and until there are more facts presented the assumptions of disdain etc are really not backed by facts. Although I believe some imply they might or should be clouded in this controversy regarding disrespect of disregard to a first climb...

 

Let's see. Or maybe we will not see. But if we will not see let's also not be forced into assumption equaling fact.

[Cpt.Caveman]

In response to this comment by Drew-

 

Ray is using a double entendre with the Turtlehead Mountain name. The other meaning of "Turtlehead" relates to an incipient defecation, if I may be so bold. "The turtle is ready to stick his head out of the shell..."

Those are my somewhat unconnected thoughts. On with the boxing gloves!

 

The propose name I have is the Turtlehead but it can be identified as a turtlehead poking out of the glacier if you look close from the east.

 

Whether or not I identify it as and or relate it as a reference to you comment could be true or false.

 

One may even identify a turtle's eye.

 

Fishing in Texas bayous might help the mind a bit.

 

[HarryMajors]

John --- My data are incomplete, and in need of updating, but here is what is immediately accessible regarding CAG and the peaks therein which Fred has actually climbed:

 

The most recent editions of CAG-1 (2000), CAG-2 (2003), and CAG-3 (2000) are used here. Tabulation is done using the peaks listed in the indices as a basis. These include Fred's published 1936-1968 climbs, as listed in "Challenge" (pp. 258-280), along with whatever has been subsequently published in CAG, AAJ, and other sources.

 

These data include backcountry and alpine crags, such as on Snagtooth Ridge and in the high Enchantments. They do not include lowland crags such as Midnight Rock.

 

I have added and included Exfoliation Dome as one of the 36 climbed peaks in CAG-2, even though it is not listed in the book or in its index. That is a peak in its own right. In fact, I believe is the most difficult "low" summit in the North Cascades.

 

All three volumes of CAG index a total of 1232 peaks, named and unnamed. Of these, Fred has climbed a recorded number of 192 peaks. This is equivalent to 16%

 

If subdivided by each volume, the results are skewed.

 

CAG-1 lists a total of 313 peaks. Of these, Fred has climbed a recorded number of 87. This is equivalent to 28%.

 

CAG-2 lists a total of 451 peaks. Of these, Fred has climbed a recorded number of 36. This is equivalent to 8%.

 

CAG-3 lists a total of 469 peaks. Of these, Fred has climbed a recorded number of 70. This is equivalent to 15%.

 

The reason why the percentage figure for CAG-1 is so high, is because of the comparatively greater number of pinnacles present in the Enchantments, and relatively fewer number of significant peaks present south of Snoqualmie Pass.

 

The Glacier Peak area does not appear to have attracted much of his attention, probably due to the relatively fewer technical climbs on high quality alpine rock. Once you get farther north, into the Pickets and the igneous plutons north of Lake Chelan, then his interest picks up again.

 

There is an immense amount of information present in those three volumes, not only climbing information, but historical and geological as well. I doubt if there is any other person here today who have put together this version of CAG. I suspect that in the future, revisions of CAG will be handled by a committee; or the North Cascades will have to be broken down into separate sub-regions, each of which is handled by an author who is thoroughly familiar with that particular area.

 

Yes, there are errors and omissions. These are to be expected. When you are dealing with such immense amounts of information, obtained from so many different sources, and so widely differing in quality, you are bound to encounter problems in information management.

 

Many errors are due to the fact that Fred has never climbed the peak in question, and had to rely on source(s) which were conflicting, inaccurate, or which could not be independently confirmed.

 

The astounding thing is that he was able to put together a guidebook, having evidently climbed only 16% of the peaks listed therein. Fred is unquestionably one of the most intelligent persons I have ever met. Don't let the apparently rough exterior fool you --- beneath lies a brilliant intellect.

 

Dru --- again, you have been extraordinarily perceptive. Yes, it would appear that during the past 30 years, Fred and I have been engaged in a low-level historical "competition." It has been an honor and a pleasure to have Fred as a "rival." It has been challenging, enjoyable, productive, and beneficial --- not only to each of us, but to the climbing and historical community as a whole. There are things which likely would not have been discovered or written or published, by both of us, were it not for the cross-influence Fred and I have had on each other.

 

Who was the victor? We both won. Everyone benefited in this case.

 

Cavey --- You are a good man. You speak with the voice of reason.

 

[Dru]

harry, do your totals include peaks fred has not made a first ascent on? if he walks up mt si does he call and let you know? if not, how skewed are your totals?

[Beck]

...nice gully on that bastard, caveman...crux low, cruising higher up, loooks like...

 

schweet!

[John_Roper]

Harry Majors wrote..

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

All three volumes of CAG index a total of 1232 peaks, named and unnamed. Of these, Fred has climbed a recorded number of 192 peaks. This is equivalent to 16%

If subdivided by each volume, the results are skewed.

 

CAG-1 lists a total of 313 peaks. Of these, Fred has climbed a recorded number of 87. This is equivalent to 28%.

 

CAG-2 lists a total of 451 peaks. Of these, Fred has climbed a recorded number of 36. This is equivalent to 8%.

 

CAG-3 lists a total of 469 peaks. Of these, Fred has climbed a recorded number of 70. This is equivalent to 15%.

 

The reason why the percentage figure for CAG-1 is so high, is because of the comparatively greater number of pinnacles present in the Enchantments, and relatively fewer number of significant peaks present south of Snoqualmie Pass.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Nice work, Harry. So Fred has done 192 peaks in the Washington Cascades that he felt were worthy, plus some of less than historic quality. I know he's also done Sitting Bull, and let's give him credit for Si, if Dru wants. He hasn't done a ton of tourist climbs. What others does anyone know about? Maybe Ray can squeeze a little blood out of the turnip. It would be interesting to compile his total WA list, including the Olympics.

[ncascademtns]

Fred climbs what he wants to climb and that is all that matters. I think that he is more interested routes than summits.

[Cpt.Caveman]

John Roper wrote

 

Maybe Ray can squeeze a little blood out of the turnip. It would be interesting to compile his total WA list, including the Olympics.

 

That's nearly impossible in a verbal conversation sense. Although he has climbed many peaks and routes he may never divulge the information in numbers and statistics. I am sure he doesnt care and would never bother to research or report on it. Fred is not that sort of person. Even if he had the info it would not be passed to me.

 

I agree with the previous response that he does enjoy routes more than he does easier summits. But he likes to make a summit as well - this means he may have or does choose a different route depending on weather conditoins and partners.

 

I dont know if he keeps a journal. It would not surprise me if he did but it may not even include all the peaks he has climbed for instance. There is a lot of years to recollect and a lot of paper to be written for sure. Fred is making summits in the Sierras this last week and enjoying the scenery and climbing according to his correspondance. He has no care of the Cascades at the time of that writing..

 

His memory is still sharp but details like this make the conversation dull and he avoids it.

 

Fred is more diverse than the Cascade Range and it's history of climbing. He has been busy elsewhere as anyone knows.

 

-RB