Least tagged summits?

[cj001f]

Sounds like the Queets might be the preferred access. I read somewhere that the Park service was allowing the Queets valley to retain its "wildness" by not maintaining trails and doing other management work, and steering general tourist traffic to the Hoh and Quinault.

That somewhat jibs with what I saw. The first 7-8 miles were NPS grade trail, the next 4-5 weren't well marked, but easy going over flood plains.

 

Of course at mile 12 there was a dump of a shelter, and about mile 15 there was a massive horse camp - complete with downed trees, etc. Real "wild"

[Harry_Pi]

 

 

There are some real peaks (ridge highpoints with >400 ft of prominence) in the Cascades that may have never been tagged--peaks that only Stefan, myself (and probably Roper) may know about. We will not be divulging any info to you yahoos.

Wow what an exclusive club. I and the other yahoos are impressed. I must study to find out where these peaks are so I can leave a can on top of a rock with my name on it where no one else has.

Hello capitalist!

Must be tall bar stools from pub clubs that Klenke couldn't quite climb up on.

Thank you for allow me to post.

[AllYouCanEat]

How about the same question as I initially asked but focusing on the Cascades. I remember climbing The Citadel and finding a log that showed only 50 names or so in the last 30 years. Mineral Mountain, near Mt Shuksan, is another. I can't imagine many people climbing that (if you have, I wouldn't mind comparing notes).

[chelle]

Not sure if it's been mentioned but I don't think Bonanza gets climbed very often.

[CascadeClimber]

Jberg has to be in there somewhere.

 

It's somewhat unique, as the summit is only a horizontal mile from the parking lot, and the approach is less than 20 minutes. I suspect it's also high on the unplanned bivies/successful summits ratio.

 

My favorite Jberg quote; "I'd rather be dipped in shit than climb it again."

 

-L

[Crackbolter]

 

 

what a convenient way of ignoring all those pinnacles and summits that are too hard for you. There seem to be many technically challenging pinnacles, needles and spires less than 400 ft. tall that only Pete Doorish has ever climbed

 

Can you list a few Dru?

[Ursa_Eagle]

I doubt that Bonaza would be too high on the list. As it's over 9,000 ft (not to mention the highest non-glaciated peak in WA), it'll be on a lot more people's lists than a peak under 9,000 feet.

[kurthicks]

i might be wrong, but isn't Bonanza the highest non-volcanic peak in Washington...?

[chelle]

Yep, but the remoteness and chossyness as far as I know puts it off many people's list. I guess I could be wrong though. I'm just making an assumption.

[Blake]

Tupshin, Reynolds, Copper, Mcalester and Fernow are all tagged fairly infrequently (guessing on a couple). There is no way to know on a lot of peaks in the area, but Bonanza's prominence and "prestige" makes it more climbed than many fairly high mountains around there.

[EWolfe]

How many ascents has "Mount Dave Schuldt" seen?

[Fairweather]

Mount Lago.

Azurite Peak.

 

??

[tshimko]

Bonanza is indeed the highest non-volcanic peak in the state, at 9511'. It gets tagged quite bit. Heck, even I've done it.

 

How about Sinister, or Agnes?

[klenke]

I find it funny when people who know nothing about the scope of the Cascades and all the peaks therein can only come up with (notable) peaks listed in Beckey's guides. If you want to refine the scope of the question to include only those peaks, then peaks such as Agnes would be a good choice. The question was more broad than that, though.

 

Apart from the peaks (unnamed but still peaks) I mentioned before as having possibly never been climbed, I think you'll find that the least tagged summits in the Cascades are ones NOT mentioned in Beckey (or are peaks that are not significant AND are in the middle of nowhere).

 

Essentially, the question is unanswerable.

 

Another quantitative question that I have often pondered is: What is the maximum radius circle you could draw on a map in the state that would encompass an area of ground that no man has ever set foot in?

 

Would it be a quarter-mile? An eighth-mile? A sixteenth of a mile? Hmmmm? Another unanswerable question.

[Jake]

Unanswerable yes, but still open to mindless speculation. I bet you could come up with a quarter mile radius - eigth mile for sure. Heck I bet you can even do bigger than a quarter mile radius. There are quite a few places out there that you can see and have absolutely no reason to go there. I bet I've been to some spots in the Pasayten that probably haven't ever been visited.

[AlpineK]

I find it funny when people who know nothing about the scope of the Cascades and all the peaks therein can only come up with (notable) peaks listed in Beckey's guides. If you want to refine the scope of the question to include only those peaks, then peaks such as Agnes would be a good choice. The question was more broad than that, though.

 

Apart from the peaks (unnamed but still peaks) I mentioned before as having possibly never been climbed, I think you'll find that the least tagged summits in the Cascades are ones NOT mentioned in Beckey (or are peaks that are not significant AND are in the middle of nowhere).

 

Essentially, the question is unanswerable.

 

Another quantitative question that I have often pondered is: What is the maximum radius circle you could draw on a map in the state that would encompass an area of ground that no man has ever set foot in?

 

Would it be a quarter-mile? An eighth-mile? A sixteenth of a mile? Hmmmm? Another unanswerable question.

 

OMFG if you go on like this at Pub Club you'll either make people or want to you.

[Dru]

 

what a convenient way of ignoring all those pinnacles and summits that are too hard for you. There seem to be many technically challenging pinnacles, needles and spires less than 400 ft. tall that only Pete Doorish has ever climbed

 

Can you list a few Dru?

 

there's a shitload in the beckey guides, usually in small print...

[klenke]

Alpine K said: "OMFG if you go on like this at Pub Club you'll either make people or want to you."

To which Paul Klenke replies: "Whatever."

[Blake]

I find it funny when people who know nothing about the scope of the Cascades and all the peaks therein can only come up with (notable) peaks listed in Beckey's guides. If you want to refine the scope of the question to include only those peaks, then peaks such as Agnes would be a good choice. The question was more broad than that, though.

 

Apart from the peaks (unnamed but still peaks) I mentioned before as having possibly never been climbed, I think you'll find that the least tagged summits in the Cascades are ones NOT mentioned in Beckey (or are peaks that are not significant AND are in the middle of nowhere).

 

Essentially, the question is unanswerable.

 

Another quantitative question that I have often pondered is: What is the maximum radius circle you could draw on a map in the state that would encompass an area of ground that no man has ever set foot in?

 

Would it be a quarter-mile? An eighth-mile? A sixteenth of a mile? Hmmmm? Another unanswerable question.

 

 

That's a good point Klenke, I guess I was thinking "Least tagged of the prominent/published/higher profile peaks." Obviously unnamed high points along remote ridgetops receive fewer visitors than those mentioned. However, in regards to your "Circle without human visit" question, it's usefull to keep in mind that Indians had been exploring the cascades for thousands of years, and there was intense and widespread exploration by trappers and miners after that. These were definitely a hardy group of folks who weren't deterred by some harsh terrain.

[snoboy]

I bet I've been to some spots in the Pasayten that probably haven't ever been visited.

 

Ever?

[Jake]

Yeah. In terms of Klenke's radius idea. Not necessarily peaks - though I bet there are some smaller bumps here and there that haven't seen anybody. I was just talking about small places - like a meadow here, a small bowl there, stuff like that.

As for Indians visiting stuff - I dunno. I kinda doubt the Indians were out there wandering around on some high ridge in the middle of nowhere. Why would they? - no food, shelter up there. Have you ever heard of any FAs by Indians?

[AllYouCanEat]

I think it would be more interesting to stick to the prominent mountains. I remember having an extra day in the Ross lake area and juggled the idea of Mount Prophet. I later read somewhere here of a group climbing it. Ignored mountains like this one are examples of what interests me most.

[Thinker]

Jake said:

As for Indians visiting stuff - I dunno. I kinda doubt the Indians were out there wandering around on some high ridge in the middle of nowhere. Why would they? - no food, shelter up there. Have you ever heard of any FAs by Indians?

 

There is anecdotal evidence that Native Americans may have done FAs of Mt Rainier and The Grand Teton. I'd venture that MANY FAs were done by natives for various reasons.

[Redoubt]

However, in regards to your "Circle without human visit" question, it's usefull to keep in mind that Indians had been exploring the cascades for thousands of years, and there was intense and widespread exploration by trappers and miners after that.

Agreed. But I think this makes Klenke's question just that much more interesting to think about. I'm not going to think about it TOO long, but it is an intriguing question. The answer, by the way, is 312.72 feet.

[PONCHO&LEFTY]

I think it would be more interesting to stick to the prominent mountains. I remember having an extra day in the Ross lake area and juggled the idea of Mount Prophet. I later read somewhere here of a group climbing it. Ignored mountains like this one are examples of what interests me most.

Exactly. To call people ingnorant for not knowing some lonely unclimbed bump in the middle of nowhere is absurd. I am sure most everyone here could bust out a map and find something that recieves little visitation. It is interesting to brainstorm the more prominent peaks that are the Least Tagged Summits .