Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those are the 'mountains'. lol. They seem bigger than the picture shows though, but that's about it for Minnesota. The Sawtooth MTs though are about a billion years old. Not really, but maybe, idk, but they are very very old.
This is the peak of 'Eagle Mountain', the highest peak in Minnesota, lol
Those are great photos of an area that looks so peaceful. Does that lake freeze over during winter? Is there skiing in those mountains?
It sometimes surprises me how much smaller the mountains on the east are compared to the west. They are all beautiful, but the western mountains vary in elevation more.
That's because geologically, the eastern mountains are much older than the western mountains.
Hiking in the east can be more physically challenging? that's amusing. which mountains in the west have you climbed?
A friend of mine just rode in her 3rd Race Across AMerica (RAAM) on a tandem bicycle. She said the Appalachian were definitely tougher to cross than the rockies. That surprised me as well.
A friend of mine just rode in her 3rd Race Across AMerica (RAAM) on a tandem bicycle. She said the Appalachian were definitely tougher to cross than the rockies. That surprised me as well.
Just looking at the west vs the east, the differences are obvous, sheer size and elevation being the two main factors. Even in the bay area , we have mountains that rise and easly eclipse almost anything past the rockies, let alone Seattle, the Olympic mountains rise from sealevel and make even the highest southern/eastern peaks look quite tame. In general, we are talking about comparing a mountain range, that is at best 5,000ish feet vs 14,000 ish, not quite fair.
I don't know why some people feel the need to turn everything into a childish pissing contest, but if you take a look at the link I posted earlier, you'll see that where prominence is concerned (the distance from base to summit rather than elevation above sea level), mountains in the Appalachians rank as high as #59 in the entire country - meaning there are only 58 mountains with greater prominence.
And while most of the Cascades and Sierra Nevada do dwarf any mountains in my neck of the woods, there are plenty that are higher in elevation than those in the Bay area, by a long shot.
For all those knocking east coast hiking...and this is from someone whose done a ton of rocky mountain hiking (not climbing, but hiking)...I've read in multiple places that east coast hiking is just as challenging, despite the elevation differences.
moreover, i've also read, though can't remember where, that of the 3 triple crown thru hikes, the AT actually has the most feet of elevation gain. This is certainly partially a function of how the trails were laid out. The CDT, obvious, doesn't take you to the top of a ridge and back down to the foothills as often as possible. But that is also part of the point - in the appalachians, you have to do this type of hiking more - it's a lot more up and down up and down, because you can't do long portions at high elevation.
in either case, I find the mountains of the northern rockies and northwest to be the most beautiful, but they are ALL amazing. Heck, the Guadalupe Mountains in Texas are amazing. Visit McKittrick Canyon in the fall. you'll be amazed you're in texas.
This map butchers the Southwest. The Mountains in Arizona aren't called the Colorado Plateau, That's the Plateau north of the mountains running diagonal across the state, and there's more than there is on his map.
This map butchers the Southwest. The Mountains in Arizona aren't called the Colorado Plateau, That's the Plateau north of the mountains running diagonal across the state, and there's more than there is on his map.
You are exactly right. This map is not so precise either, in that it doesn't show any of the sky islands.
Hiking in the Appalachians can be amazing and pretty challenging. I think the difference is that while trail hiking can be difficult in parts of the Appalachians(due to steep trails and hills) climbing peaks on the West Coast is a world apart from anywhere east of the Rockies. I've climbed most of the Cascade volcanos in the Northwest with the exception of Mt. Rainier and Mt. Jefferson. You're dealing with hiking over miles of glaciers and snowfields even in late summer, besides having to worry about rock and icefall, rapid changes in weather, falling into crevasses and high elevations above 10,000 feet.
If you live at sea level as most American do, hiking at higher elevations can be the most challenging factor for even a simple day hike on a well graded trail. There are 14,000 foot mountains in Colorado with fairly easy trails to the top, although the high elevation makes them difficult for even some hikers in top shape. Or take the John Muir Trail through the High Sierra---in over 211 miles it crosses 6 passes over 11,000 feet.
And don't get me wrong---I love parts of the Appalachians, especially driving and hiking along the Blue Ridge Parkway through the southern part of the range. However, in the Sierra Nevada there is basically a 200 mile stretch south of Tioga Pass in Yosemite in which no drivable road actually crosses the mountains. It's just a whole level of ruggedness away from anything in the East. If someone loves the beauty of the mountains of the East or the hills and lake of Midwest I can't argue with them--but in terms of scale, hiking and climbing in the Western mountain ranges is on a different level.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.