|
Qwerelwof
Aug 12, 2013, 7:53 PM
Post #1 of 20
(22504 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2013
Posts: 1
|
I am moving to either Colorado or Washington, I am a rock climber and alpine climber. Could you help me weigh the pros and cons? Washington has higher quality alpine climbing and good rock climbing but the weather sucks and everything is quite a ways away from the city. Colorado has tons of climbing everywhere but I have no idea about the quality of the alpine climbing... most of CO's big mountains look pretty mild and hikeable to me... please give me your opinion! As a climber, where would you rather live?
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Aug 12, 2013, 8:25 PM
Post #2 of 20
(22490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
Qwerelwof wrote: I am moving to either Colorado or Washington, I am a rock climber and alpine climber. Could you help me weigh the pros and cons? Washington has higher quality alpine climbing and good rock climbing but the weather sucks and everything is quite a ways away from the city. Colorado has tons of climbing everywhere but I have no idea about the quality of the alpine climbing... most of CO's big mountains look pretty mild and hikeable to me... please give me your opinion! As a climber, where would you rather live?
Look up:
Long's Peak
Hallet Peak
Spearhead
Chiefs Head
Check out Darguad's Colorado page:
http://www.gdargaud.net/...oloradoMountain.html
There's a lifetime of alpine climbing just in RMNP let alone the rest of the state.
Edit to fix the missing italic close tag
(This post was edited by marc801 on Aug 13, 2013, 12:53 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jmeizis
Aug 12, 2013, 8:30 PM
Post #3 of 20
(22489 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2006
Posts: 635
|
Both states have good rock and alpine. The alpine climbing in CO is more accessible and ice and snow routes are difficult to find in ideal conditions for very long periods of time. The alpine climbing in CO doesn't have any glaciers and approaches are generally easy to follow and don't involve much distance or bushwhacking.
The alpine climbing in Washington is a bit more of an undertaking and involves glacier travel so even on smaller peaks they seem bigger.
If you are more into rock I'd head to CO. If you enjoy snow, alpine, and glaciers more then I'd go to WA. I live in CO and have limited travel to WA so that's where I'm coming from.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Aug 13, 2013, 12:57 AM
Post #4 of 20
(22452 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
Something else to consider: where you would go for a climbing trip may or may not be where you would want to live - there are lots of other considerations. Remember, you climb on some days of the year; you live in some specific place *every day*. Anyone who bases where they live exclusively on their pastime activities is bound to be disappointed at some point.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Aug 13, 2013, 1:26 AM
Post #5 of 20
(22450 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
I think per capita, Colorado has way more technically severe alpine climbs than Washington. Washington has more to appeal to the wannabe big-range mountaineer, but Colorado has more to appeal to the wannabe alpinist.
There is a lot of shit rock in Washington and basically no vertical ice.
|
|
|
|
|
milesenoell
Aug 13, 2013, 2:27 PM
Post #6 of 20
(22406 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2006
Posts: 1156
|
Colorado puts a lot more stuff within a days drive than Washington, especially if you choose a major city in WA.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Aug 14, 2013, 12:25 AM
Post #7 of 20
(22360 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
Does the glacier scene matter?
WA: ~180 named glaciers
CO: 16 named glaciers
|
|
|
|
|
jomagam
Aug 14, 2013, 1:41 AM
Post #8 of 20
(22351 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2008
Posts: 364
|
billl7 wrote: CO: 16 named glaciers
And those are all just permanent snowfields, not glaciers.
|
|
|
|
|
billl7
Aug 14, 2013, 3:01 AM
Post #9 of 20
(22341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 1890
|
jomagam wrote: billl7 wrote: CO: 16 named glaciers And those are all just permanent snowfields, not glaciers.
Sigh. NM may not even have permanent snowfields. I miss the Olympics and Cascades ... beautifully wild country.
|
|
|
|
|
chris
Aug 29, 2013, 2:42 PM
Post #10 of 20
(21792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 4, 2003
Posts: 97
|
I think it really depends on what you want to get out of alpine climbing, and you have to be much more specific about where in each state you'd consider moving too.
What Washington doesn't have is a lot of easy-to-access ice. Because of our proximity to the ocean, cold temps are moderated by the Pacific and our ice season is extremely short. The dedicated ice climbers here get after it when its in, get disappointed often, and visit Canmore and Ouray regularly.
What we have is BIG and remote. With a few exceptions (hello, Rainier), the Cascades average 8000-9000'. But our valley floors average 1000-2000', so we're actually talking about 6000-7000' of difference.
Bushwacking is a requisite skill here, where we have triple canopy coniferous forest with slippery alder and several types of thorny plants to negotiate. Glacier travel skills are necessary for a lot - but certainly not the majority - of alpine climbs. The alpine rock is often quite good - not Sierra clean, but not limestone choss like some other places!
I've lived in Jackson, Wyoming and Bishop, California, and I chose to make Seattle my home. I can drive 45 minutes to Snoqualmie Pass, two hours to Leavenworth or Rainier, three hours to Baker or Hood, and in 5 hours I can be in Washington Pass, Smith Rock, or Squamish.
Last note - part of the reason I chose Seattle is because I'd rather ski all the time and ice climb a little. And the snowpack here cannot be beat by anywhere else.
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Aug 29, 2013, 8:30 PM
Post #11 of 20
(21751 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
One key factor is that Colorado has legalized marijuana for recreational use.
Wait. So has Washington.
I like your style, Qwerelwof.
(This post was edited by shimanilami on Aug 29, 2013, 11:15 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jjanowia
Aug 29, 2013, 9:21 PM
Post #12 of 20
(21740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2005
Posts: 126
|
What do you like better - good Mexican food? Or hipster culture? I'm assuming the choice is Denver vs Seattle.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Sep 1, 2013, 5:03 AM
Post #13 of 20
(21586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
chris wrote: Last note - part of the reason I chose Seattle is because I'd rather ski all the time and ice climb a little. And the snowpack here cannot be beat by anywhere else.
In what sense? In terms of shear depth, its true. The maritime snowpack is thick, and has more water than any other kind of snowpack. In terms of quality, I beg to differ. Corn is not powder, and even days on hero corn is nothing like days on packed powder.
That said, the shear scale of the mountains out here, and the fact that you can ski a glacier 12 months out of the year, means that for a certain kind of alpine climber, its pretty awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
daneburns
Sep 1, 2013, 5:29 AM
Post #14 of 20
(21580 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 14, 2004
Posts: 70
|
In reply to: "petsfed"I think per capita, Colorado has way more technically severe alpine climbs than Washington.
Doubt that....
In reply to: There is a lot of shit rock in Washington and basically no vertical ice.
Wrong again. Some shit rock (generally basalt at small rock climbing areas where you nca climb all winter long) and a whole lot of decent to above average granite. Ice like anywhaere comes and goes. When conditions are good they cna be really good for ice and decent access.
If you ski there is not much to choose from. WA wins that one hands down if you want to ski 9 months of the year on lifts. BC even more.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Sep 5, 2013, 2:27 AM
Post #15 of 20
(21393 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
daneburns wrote: If you ski there is not much to choose from. WA wins that one hands down if you want to ski 9 months of the year on lifts. BC even more.
Well, you can do that in Colorado too. A-Basin normally opens in mid October and closes on the 4th of July.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
daneburns
Sep 5, 2013, 6:37 AM
Post #16 of 20
(21367 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 14, 2004
Posts: 70
|
No question A-basin is good. May be just not the quality and the opportunity to ski so many places as you have for late season in WA and you can add Hood to that list but that is Oregon :).
CO certainly has more to offer if you are an ice climber. But then if you really like to climb ice Canada is just that much further way from CO. And it is not close for most of WA. Easily accessed Mixed? CO again by a fair margin
I'd also give CO the nod for more rock, but not any better rock.
|
|
|
|
|
jomagam
Sep 5, 2013, 4:43 PM
Post #17 of 20
(21313 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2008
Posts: 364
|
curt wrote: Well, you can do that in Colorado too. A-Basin normally opens in mid October and closes on the 4th of July. Curt
By normally you mean sometimes, right ? 3 seasons ago that was the case, but in 2012 closing day was early May, and this year early June. Usually the last couple of weeks are shitty skiing anyways. The first month is pretty bad too with a couple of runs open on man made snow.
I'd say 5 solid months of skiing in the Summit county resorts.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Sep 5, 2013, 9:10 PM
Post #19 of 20
(21279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
cracklover wrote: Except that nearly all the Mexican restaurants I've found in Denver are total crap. They sell nothing but canned (or canned-tasting) Americanized garbage.
Tamayo?
Tarasco's New Latino Cuisine?
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Sep 6, 2013, 4:26 AM
Post #20 of 20
(21250 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
marc801 wrote: cracklover wrote: Except that nearly all the Mexican restaurants I've found in Denver are total crap. They sell nothing but canned (or canned-tasting) Americanized garbage. Tamayo? Tarasco's New Latino Cuisine?
Never been to either, but thanks for the recommendation, I'll try to check 'em out!
GO
|
|
|
|
|
|
