Let's chat about snow and mountains

[Jim]

I'm bored and thinking about mountains and snow, so let's chat it up.

I seems to me, that the San Francisco Peaks are very similar in terms of latitude, altitude and vegetation, to the Sangre De Cristos in NM. The White Mountains get lots of snow, but they aren't very high and they lack the alpine ecosystems. They have spruce-fir, but no bristlecone or other alpine species, since they lack alpine tundra. The White Mountains seem to get more snow than the San Fran Peaks, and more summer rain, and they have perennial streams like the Sangres. They also have blue spruce in the Whites. The San Fran Peaks are more rugged like the Sangres, but lack surface water in most places and have no blue spruce. The Peaks and the Whites seem like they took the best of the Sangres and split it in two, and sent it to opposite ends of Arizona. Yup, thats my musing.

[azbackpackr]

They are not too similar, since the Peaks are a spectacular range that cover a smallish area, whereas the Whites comprise an area 300 miles long, and I don't know how wide, but more of a high plateau with a lot of hills and valleys. While the Whites don't have too many true mountaineering opportunities, they contain the possibility of multi week off-trail wandering and meandering, on foot or horseback. The Peaks are steeper and more challenging, especially off-trail.

Last time I climbed the Hump I could see Mt. Baldy and Escudilla and Mt. Taylor. That was several years ago. Clear day!

It's starting to be spring, the sun is up when I start my school bus run, the birds are singing. There is almost no snow left in my yard. There is still a LOT of snow up at Sunrise and Pole Knoll, but I just put my mountain bike back together again, and realized it needs some attention. I am thinking about hiking, too, but everything up there is either too snowy or too muddy. I haven't tried out my brand-new Go-Light backpack yet, either!

It's an inbetween kind of season.

[JoelHazelton]

I wish the forest interested me more, but I just can't get into it. I love the wild west feel of the desert... Unobscured views for miles upon miles, the refection of fiery sunsets on the rocks, endless canyons and ridges begging to be explored, the beauty and contrast of water from winter rains rushing through the arid land... I know if I moved to the high country I could get used to it, but I will always be a desert rat.

With that said, my favorite part of the White Mountains is the spring snowmelt feeding Grand Falls on the LCR

[hippiepunkpirate]

I wish the forest interested me more, but I just can't get into it. I love the wild west feel of the desert... Unobscured views for miles upon miles, the refection of fiery sunsets on the rocks, endless canyons and ridges begging to be explored, the beauty and contrast of water from winter rains rushing through the arid land... I know if I moved to the high country I could get used to it, but I will always be a desert rat.

I love the forest....but mostly in the summer time! I've determined that I'm not a fan of the snow like Jim is. I'm actually not real big on ponderosa pine forest. Only the old growth pines, and it's nice if there's some topographic relief to supplement the pines. Endless flatlands of dog-hair thicket ponderosas suck! I'm really a fan of aspens, and the alpine evergreens are pretty cool. Alpine tundra is awesome, but like I said, I'm not so into the snow. As far as the Jim's comparisons of ranges, I wish I could offer more, but I've never hiked in the Whites or the Sangres (but I really want to!) I must say that the Sangres viewed from the San Luis Valley is absolutely breathtaking. The Sangres are a fault-block range, so its form resembles the ranges in southern Arizona...a long, tall, narrow, rugged range that goes on for miles and miles and miles. Except it has alpine tundra that goes on for miles and miles and miles. Totally mind-blowing compared to the amount of alpine tundra we have on the Peaks. I do love the mountains, but snow sucks!

That being said, in the summer of 2011, I will likely be moving to Denver for about 2 years. Hopefully I will live within reasonable proximity to the Front Range of the Rockies. I'm also positive that I will return to Arizona sometime in 2013, and I'm pretty sure I won't be living in Flagstaff. Not that I don't love Flagstaff to death, but the snow is just too much for me. Optimally I'd like to live in Sedona, but in reality I'll probably end up in Tucson because of the larger job market.

[chumley]

I think it comes down to area. I've been to the Sangre's a couple of times, but don't know a lot about them. (In a good snow year, Taos is one of the best ski areas there is!) To me the Peaks are just that: a huge mountain in the middle of a plateau ... where the Whites are a bit more of a "range". If you were to compare the square miles of land above 8000 feet for example, the Whites far exceed the peaks.

I'm sure that the amount of land above a certain elevation affects temperature more, which affects precipitation and weather (or visa versa). That of course leads to the ability for different species of flora to live/thrive/survive...

I don't have the statistics, but I believe that the White Mountains receive quite a bit more rain annually than the peaks do. Its tough to know though, because Flagstaff is really the only reliable weather station near the peaks, while the Whites have higher-elevation weather stations such as Hannagan Meadow and Alpine.

Taos is at about 7k just like Flag, but instead of just one peak, the Sangre's are a range which offers a bit more area of higher elevation lands that affects temperature and subsequently flora. Not sure, but it seems like the Whites are larger in area than the Sangre's when it comes to area above 8k?

[azbackpackr]

When I first moved up here at first all I could see was Ponderosa Pines. Boring...! I soon learned there is a lot more to this area than the pines! The grasslands outside of Springerville, in the Springerville Volcanic Area, contain the most petroglyphs and other archaeological sites, very interesting. There are said to be 20,000 archaeological sites within 10 miles of Springerville. Not sure that is true, but I have heard it said. There are rugged canyons and gorges hidden away in these grasslands. There are also rugged gorges, seldom hiked due to being so rough, all over the White Mountains range. Some have trails along them, most do not. And the peak bagging, while often not spectacular in terms of ruggedness or distance, is rewarding because the views are so free of man-made objects. Mountain after mountain after mountain is what you often will see.

An area grows on you as you learn its intricacies as well. Just about the time you start becoming an "expert" in your area is just about the same time you start to realize how much of it you DON'T know! The more I explore, the more places I find to explore. Take a topo, any topo, and learn its creeks and mountains.

Which is why I make fun of people who only come up here to hike Baldy or Escudilla. Nice hikes, don't get me wrong, but on a summer weekend there are so many people in those places that you are never going to be assured of solitude. Stay out of the designated wilderness areas, in fact, if you really want solitude, and off the trails. Bear Wallow, Escudilla, Baldy--these places are never going to provide you with the wilderness experience you would get by just going one or two peaks or drainages away from them. Bear Wallow especially. There are a couple creeks nearby that are almost EXACTLY the same in appearance to Bear Wallow, which have trails down them, but I have never seen any other backpackers along them. On the other hand, Bear Wallow's main trail has been ravaged by horses--it is just a ditch. (Besides the poison oak in there is enough to deter anyone.)

I notice ABC has an upcoming trip to Bear Wallow. Been there, done that. Maybe I should offer one to the nearby one I am referring to. But maybe I just don't want to tell the whole world about it, either. Find it for yourself.

[hippiepunkpirate]

Not sure, but it seems like the Whites are larger in area than the Sangre's when it comes to area above 8k?

Don't forget the Sangres also stretch halfway across Colorado, and they're taller in Colorado, containing 10 of Colorado's 14ers and an uncountable number of 13ers and 12ers. The Whites certainly have more area above 8k than you would expect for a range with only cresting 11k, but the Sangres are a beast of a range and have more area over 8k by a long shot.

[writelots]

I know if I moved to the high country I could get used to it, but I will always be a desert rat.

I'm with ya there! Love the lush forests, but they just don't touch my soul like the deserts... But, really, just being outside and alive is the best part

[azbackpackr]

I know if I moved to the high country I could get used to it, but I will always be a desert rat.

I'm with ya there! Love the lush forests, but they just don't touch my soul like the deserts... But, really, just being outside and alive is the best part

Right on! I ache for the desert right now, at times, although I love the cross country skiing, and the snowy backdrop of mountains surrounding my valley. I lived in Yuma last winter for 4 months, got into kayaking on the Colorado river and the side lakes (Squaw, Mittry, Martinez, Old River between the dams, etc.) and explored some really cool canyons via foot, mountain bike and jeep. Backpacked in the Muggins Mountains wilderness area. Road biked all over the place. I like the big bright desert winter sky, the wide open spaces, the long vistas. The quality of the light in winter in the desert has an effect on me that runs deep. Not sure how to describe that feeling. There is a certain slant to the winter light which gives definition to the rugged desert peaks, yet it is clear and bright. Plus, they have the best swap meets...

[sirena]

I wish the forest interested me more, but I just can't get into it. I love the wild west feel of the desert... Unobscured views for miles upon miles, the refection of fiery sunsets on the rocks, endless canyons and ridges begging to be explored, the beauty and contrast of water from winter rains rushing through the arid land... I know if I moved to the high country I could get used to it, but I will always be a desert rat.

I know exactly how you feel- people get all excited about the forested area of AZ, but frankly, if I don't have the big desert views, I tend to get bored really easily. The ponderous ponderosa pine stretch of AZ I find particularly boring. Everything looks the same for miles and miles.. Give me my big desert vistas any day!!

[big_load]

I'm a big view guy. In forested mountains, I like to hike above the treeline as much as possible, and camp lower down. I love the alpine environment as much as the desert. I like the woods, too, but I prefer to see out.

[Jim]

Yeah, the long stretches of nearly level pine can be boring, but thats just part of them growing on the edge of the Plateau. The dog hair thickets should never have been, thats just the result of 90 years of bad management. Even the thinnings they are doing are fairly half-assed since the real diversity is in the herbaceous layer and they aren't doing anything to restore that. Look at the thinned areas on the west side of 89A south of town, I hope you like mullein. The country side just needs some more relief. My understanding of the Whites is that they are pretty rolling, and not very rugged to go up and down in. I never even thought of them as a range, more of a large uplifted volcanic region.

I'm not surprised you could see the whites from Humphrey, I see them pretty regularly from the summit. I am surprised about Taylor. That just seems to too far away, and there are other things which would seem to block the view.

[azbackpackr]

Well, I could be wrong about Taylor. Looks as though it is about 275 as the crow flies from Humphreys. Baldy is well under 200 in a straight line, as I recall.

I like most landscapes, but some have to kind of grow on you. Which is why I mentioned the Springerville Volcanic Area grasslands. Not much to look at, driving through them. Rolling hills, few trees, etc. It grows on you, though, once you start exploring it. The Little Colorado River gorge, Carnero Creek gorge, etc.

A lot of people move to Arizona, take up hiking and at first the desert does not grab them and they long for the greenery of the Appalachians, etc. They even find fault with our pine woods--not green enough for them! But talk to them a few years down the road, and most of them have totally changed their outlook. After awhile that ultra-green vision fades and they learn to SEE.

Pine woods can be interesting if geological features exist, cliffs, views through the pines, deep gorges with creeks at the bottom which you have to climb down cliffs to reach. A lot of places where the Black River's branches or the Little Colorado's branches--you can be walking through the woods and suddenly, without any warning (unless you have a map in your hand) you are at the edge of a steep gorge--which is one of those rivers. Look straight down, see the water, hear the water. Cliffed out, you might have to walk a long way to reach a place where you can climb down. Lots of off-trail hikes can take you to these kinds of places.

Or the pine woods can be fun if you are looking for something, such as antlers in the springtime. If there is a lot of wildlife,that does make them more interesting. But otherwise, especially in the flats, not a very thrilling landscape, it's true.

[Jim]

I have found I mostly like to hike or climb up and have lots of relief to enjoy. I suppose the eastern Sierra or parts of Colorado would be best for me in that regard, but there aren't many places to live near the east side of the Sierra (other than Bishop, CA) and the Rockies can be pretty cold in winter. Winter is longer in Colorado, too. New Mexico seems to be a good place, but I have never lived there. That's why I am getting interested in the southern Sangres, or the NM part of the range. As Jake mentioned, I have found I like snow and love snow climbing/ hiking. There's just something about it, and if it is a nice day it isn't usually very cold. Wind does change that, though.

Eastern Arizona would be a lot better if it had a 50 mile long by 10 mile wide range that reach 4000 meters ( 13,123') or so. Imaging a nice granite range with alpine vegetation, and rugged peaks with many different climbing and scrambling opportunities. You'd never have to leave the state unless you wanted Sierra-esque dry summer weather.

[big_load]

New Mexico seems to be a good place, but I have never lived there.

I've been exploring NM in bits for a while now. Santa Fe is a fun town, but it's nearly as expensive as San Francisco. I might be able to adjust to Albuquerque. Las Cruces is well-situated for the Gila, but it doesn't seem as home-worthy as other towns of its size. Flagstaff is one of my favorites. I'd be a fish out of water in most CO towns that well-positioned geographically. Ft. Collins or Durango might suffice. Among smaller towns, I like Salida, but I'd probably go nuts there after a while.

[azbackpackr]

I kind of like Silver City, NM, although it has a kind of trashy element that makes working in the local job market a pain in the neck, according to people I know who have tried it. It has a university and some amount of culture, without being a big city. It has a decent bike shop or two. (I can't remember if it has a backpacking store, or if the bike shop doubles as a gear store.) It would be a lot more interesting than Springerville, that is for sure.

My daughter continually bugs us to move up to Flag. I would like living there, I think, if I was in a situation where I could not be too stressed about money.

[hippiepunkpirate]

I was in a situation where I could not be too stressed about money.

Around here we through around the term "poor with a view". That's why I'm thinking I will eventually end up in Tucson. Great hiking AND a good job market where the cost of living isn't ridiculous and there is some sense of bohemian culture unlike the Phoenix metro area.

[azbackpackr]

Absolutely, Tucson is awesome! I lived there for 13 years, and still belong to the So. Az. Hiking Club. They put on 50 to 100 hikes a month, and the club prez, (a friend of mine) is a backpacker, and makes sure the club does not return to the "old-lady-dayhiker" reputation it had for awhile. (There are still plenty of those, bless them, but there are a lot of really great off-trail hikes and backpacks in the bulletin nowadays.) The town has grown a whole lot, and the traffic is awful, but otherwise I still love that place. The hiking is unbeatable. A lot of the SAHC people will often even drive as far as the Chiricahuas just for a day hike! And you are in easy reach of the Huachucas, Atascosas, Tumacacoris, Baboquivaris, Galiuros, Santa Teresas, etc., etc. Not to mention the obvious Catalinas, Rincons, Tucsons, and Santa Ritas. (Just learning to pronounce all the names correctly is a challenge! ;) )

I would put it on the short list of places to move if my husband wasn't so against it. My brother and sister still live there, too. But hubby does not like "going backward" and says if he is going to move to a big city then he would rather move to the outskirts of San Diego, where there is more culture and other things that interest him, (plus he hates the hot summers in Tucson--San Diego climate agrees with him). San Diego is my hometown--my grandparents and even my great-grandparents are buried there--so I would be "going backward" but would be happy to at least give it a try. The hiking and backpacking around San Diego are also pretty good, and so are the sea kayaking, surfing, sailing, scuba, mtn. biking, etc. In fact we are going out there in two weeks to visit family and bringing our bikes, as usual. There was no such thing as "sea kayaking" as a popular sport when I lived there! I left in 1978! We actually found an affordable place to live when we were out there: a pleasant 55+ mobile home park with older homes for sale for $16,000 or so, lot rent $500, out in the country near Escondido, 2 acre duck pond and lots of trees and greenery on the property, and close to lots of good hiking. You aren't going to find anything very much cheaper than that in So Cal. We haven't bought anything yet, though...

[tahosa]

That being said, in the summer of 2011, I will likely be moving to Denver for about 2 years. Hopefully I will live within reasonable proximity to the Front Range of the Rockies.

If you make it up that way contact me for I know of a hiker that knows the backcountry up there real well and he will gladly take you on a hike.

I just loved to play in the snow when I lived up there, some of the Front Range trails can be hiked even in the winter. Just a little icy at times. But they are just beautiful when it is full of fresh snow. I'll take the cold and snow over the heat we have down here in the summer.