This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Untitled
So far, this is just a bare-bones start, focusing on the peaks. I will make the lists longer and more detailed; I also intend to put in short sections on geology, geography, and history. Pictures would of course be nice. -- Spireguy 04:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Subranges
It's late and I've got a big cut on my finger (from p[laying guitar savagely earlier) but wanted to start a short list; some are official names, some colooquial, othres climbers names eetc.
Coquihalla Range - not official, usually called Boston Bar Group I think; there's a Coquihalla Mountain but....I certainly wouldn't consider Lytton Mtn or Boston Bar Mtn, Zakwaski, Hewitt Bostock etc part of a Coquihalla Range; not even Mt Ogilvie; I'll see what respective googles and bivouacs for it are.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Split list-like material into its own article
To try to make this article more readable, I've split the lists into their own article, Geography of the North Cascades, and added an image map taken from North Cascades National Park.Hopefully this will encourage editors to add more prose. —hike395 (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
wording in lede re Cdn Cascades
I don't want to make it too wordy but re this (which is my own handiwork in the first place):
The portion in Canada is known as the Canadian Cascades, a designation that also includes the mountains above the east bank of the Fraser Canyon as far north as the town of Lytton, at the confluence of the Thompson and Fraser Rivers.
I'm thinking should be:
The portion in Canada is known as the Canadian Cascades, a designation that mostly refers to the Skagit Range, to distinguish that area from the adjoining US part of the range, but also is sometimes used to include the mountains above the east bank of the Fraser Canyon as far north as the town of Lytton, at the confluence of the Thompson and Fraser River, and also to the Manning Park area, though those areas are more usually referred to simply as the Cascade Mountains, with the eastern Okanagan Range generally identified only by that name alone.
Maybe there's a simpler way to put that; the term Canadian Cascades generally isn't used for the areas north and east of Hope, essentially, whereas "Cascade Mountains" is.Skookum1 (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
there's been no administrator action on this CfD since I put it up the other night, and its creator User:Shannon1 approves of the move; choices are either Category:Canadian Cascades or Category:Cascade Mountains of British Columbia; the sister category is Category:North Cascades of Washington. Please drop by and "make a vote" and maybe opine on which name is better; maybe if there are more than just the two of us are present in the discussion and there is broader input it may spur an admin to action. Speedy renaming criteria did not include "mistaken name at time of creation". As noted in my comments there, it may be proper to split this article between the US usage and the Canadian usage even though the Skagit, Hozameen and Okanagan Ranges bridge the border. Question for Americans familiar with the Okanagan Range - is it usually included in the usage of the term "North Cascades"?? Terrain-wise it's much more similar to the northern Hozameen Range and the Lytton-Coquihalla patch of the range (which doesn't have an official subrange name; unofficial names for some patches are the Anderson River Group, Llamoid Group, and Coquihalla Range, though there's no such designation for the Lytton Mtn/Kanaka Mtn area, maybe because they're not of interest to climbers.Skookum1 (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Once the renaming is done, I'll happily populate the category; but for now, with the name at present, I just can't.Skookum1 (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Re:Okanagan Range: based on my (American) understanding and looking at the relevant wiki articles, I would include the Okanagan Range (and therefore the Pasayten Wilderness and parts of the Okanogan National Forest) in the North Cascades, but I would not include the Okanagan Valley nor the Okanagan Highland. In practice, I feel like Americans tend to lump all three of those places into "the Okanagan", but looking at a map I would say that the North Cascades end at the Okanagan River. I suppose someone could make an argument for using the Chewack River or the Simikameen/Chopaka/Sinlahekin/Conconully valleys, but for simplicities sake I would just use the Okanagan River. The map on the North Cascades article is drawn to include the Okanagan Range. -- BlueCanoe (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Geology and Extent section
The geologic definitions are of course needed; there's some wording that needs tweaking so that we know that Mount Meager, for instance, is not part of the North Cascades mountain range, but of the North Cascades geologic region....Holland has other comments on geology in his chapter on the Cascade Mountains. i.e. about why he picked the northeast boundary that he did; I happen to know, from a local geo-consultant in Lillooet, that Lytton Mountain is part of a different geology, with more affinity to the Camelsfoot Range and the west bank of the Fraser between Lillooet and Lytton....care has to be taken with terms like Intertotnane Belt, because Intermontane Plateaus has a different meaning and is topographic in nature; and would more correspond the Omineca-Intermontane Province geologic region....jumbling of terms is common also from the ecoregion end, where the North Cascades (ecoregion) is not the same as the range.....tangled webs woven, we have to untie them for clarity, or always make sure of the right context....I'll try and dig up the item about Lytton Mountain, and also see what user:Black Tusk might have to add about the Coquihalla Mtn and Cathedral Park areas (his thing is volcanics).Skookum1 (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that the discussion of geology in the "Extent" subsection of the "Geography" section is just confusing the issue. Especially when there is a main article on the Geography of the North Cascades, we should be summarizing and simplifying, not complicating things too much. Of course, if there are legitimate differences in the definitions of extent, that's fine, but for the purposes of this article they should be able to be summarized in a sentence or two. And as a geologist, I don't agree with everything in that paragraph as it stands anyway. I would recommend moving the detailed discussion of geologic vs. geographic extent to the "Geography of..." article and summarizing in a sentence or two the main differences, which seem to be the inclusion of the San Juans and the lack of a sharp geologic boundary to the north (and I would also say south). Names of specific geologic provinces, terranes, faults, and formations should be moved out of the "Geography" section and into "Geology". -- BlueCanoe (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
User:pfly was trying to discuss the US extent of the Okanagan Range, i.e. the northeastern boundary of the Norht Cascades, by drawing on geologic sources; as noted it's difficult material, and he's not a geologist (not that I know of); I agree with moving it into the geology section, though some distillation of the geologic and/or physiographic parameter regarding the eastern boundary of the range is needed; what brought this on is that there is no formal toponym-name for "Okanogan Range" apposite to the Canadian usage Okanagan Range, although I have seen references to the Okanogan Range on regional and/or historical websites...Skookum1 (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Yea, my addition came out of a discussion with Skookum about whether and how the Canadian Cascades corresponds to the North Cascades in Washington. The Okanagan Range came up, which I had not heard of and couldn't find in the USGS GNIS or my topo maps, which led me to research the geological distinctions of the region. Turns out Okanogan Range is a term used in the US after all (GNIS notwithstanding, and of course spelled differently). I was surprised to learn of the geological idea that a precise fault seems to be commonly cited as the boundary between the North Cascades and the region to the east, and that the fault lies just east of the Methow Valley--and also interested to see Snoqualmie Pass cited as the southern geological limit. It seemed interesting enough and different from the "geographic" delineation to warrant mention, so I wrote up something quick and dirty. I am not a geologist by any stretch, and my knowledge of the peaks and ranges in BC is rather sketchy (and not all that great in WA either!). And I was not sure whether the info in the Orr & Orr source I used was widely accepted (I suspected some might be out of date and/or a bit speculative). Various web sources backed up the eastern fault boundary idea, but I didn't research the other boundaries very deeply. I realized the paragraph was written quickly and perhaps ought to be edited, put somewhere else, corrected, etc--but with my limited time it was all I could do to write what I did. Feel free to do whatever seems best--edit, move, delete even. One reason why I thought a geologic definition might be of use is that in Washington there is such a striking difference between the rocks of the North Cascades vs those to the south. Just hiking a trail makes it obvious to even a non-geologist like me that there is a great difference in the types of rock and landform. Ok, gotta run! Pfly (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
That's cool. Thanks for putting in the effort and making a first attempt. From what I understand, while the eastern boundary of what is geographically considered the "North Cascades" may coincide exactly with a fault, that is not an unusual intersection of geography, topography, and geology. They are, after all, related disciplines. There are faults all over the Cascades, some correlating with changes in topography and therefore how we as people perceive geography, others not. I'll try to make an edit in the next couple days, and we can go from there. Just googling now, these look like promising references: [1][2][3]. -- BlueCanoe (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
What struck me was that the eastern boundary was differently defined in geology vs geography. This page says the Okanogan River is the eastern boundary, geographically speaking anyway. There's quite a swath of land between the Methow Valley and the Okanogan River. The difference makes me wonder whether something like Loomis State Forest (huh, no page) is generally regarded as part of the North Cascades or not. How about Conconully? Tiffany Mountain, etc? Pfly (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Um, I have nothing much to say about Coquihalla or Cathedral Park. Coquihalla is a volcano I do not know too much about. The only comment I have for Coquihalla is it is a Cascade volcano like other volcanoes in the Cascade Range. The reason why it is further inland is because during the early Tertiary period the Cascade Volcanic Arc was further inland, likely due to shallower subduction of the Juan de Fuca Plate. The Cascade Volcanic Arc is now closer to the coast because the Juan de Fuca Plate is subducting at the Cascadia subduction zone at a steeper angle. Thus Coquihalla is most likely extinct. Black Tusk (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
"Hope Mountains"??
Is that a Beckey-ism? If Mount Hope and Isolillock Peak and Steamboat are what's meant, they're part of the Skagit Range.....I googled "Hope Mountains" and saw nothing relevant...note changes just made on Skagit Range page...Skookum1 (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I came across it in Beckey, although he cites other sources. Part of the Skagit Range, yes, a subrange. Or so he says. You know more than me on the region, I have no doubt. Still, I googled "Hope Mountains" too. The results were mostly unrelated things. Adding another term, like "Skagit" or "Coquihalla", yielded better results. It looked like there are many examples of the term being used, although possibly more commonly in the early 20th century. Here's a few I found:
And finally, Beckey: Cascade Alpine Guide: Rainy Pass to Fraser River, p. 261: "From N of the Klesilkwa River to the Coquihalla River the nomenclature is the Hope Mountains, and W of the Coquihalla and Coldwater rivers it becomes the Anderson River Group... See Cairnes, Coquihalla Area." And page 11: "Earlier usage had termed the "Hope Mountains" from the Klesilkwa River northward and eastward and continuing E of the Coquihalla River. In the early part of the century, the Klesilkwa was considered the dividing line between the Skagit and Hozameen ranges."
I know some of these may be poor sources. It seems like there were many more. But I defer to you. Pfly (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hm. I would have thought they meant the mountains south of Hope, or south of Highway 3 at least; hadn't anticipated what was meant was to the north; which I saw somewhere else the mention "Coquihalla Range"....and I'd thought the Anderson River Group was only up around that river, and/or is interchangeable with the climber-trendy term the Llamoid Group (which is an amazing group of horn-like summits, check it out on Randall & Kat's....)....by what I'm reading they mean the whole group of mountain basins converging on Hope, north of the Klesilkwa....certainly a vernacular usage, but I'm going to have to study those to decide exactly what they mean; the Coquihalla Range terminology is relatively recent, I think.....the east wall of the Fraser Canyon, historically, I've just heard as "the Cascades"....Skookum1 (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
BTW that map on "Camp Defiance" is the first time I've seen a map showing the Whatcom Trail....I'd thought that came through the Columbia Valley (Cultus Lake) but apparently not.....keep your eyes open for US-side sources having maps or closer descriptions of that, now I'm curious...that map also seems to label two different creeks as Skaist Creek....Skookum1 (talk) 07:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I just made the Klesilkwa River page; would you mind adding those locational/historical boundary references....and note this from bivouac.com; their name is unofficial, but the Silverhope-Klesilkwa pass is the prominence col for Mount Baker....(prom 2706m)...somewhere up the Silverhope there was a Steamboat Mountain boomtown/speculation, I think for silver rather than gold; I don't have my Ghost Towns of BC book anymore, it had something in there on that.....Skookum1 (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Will do my best. There's load of information in Beckey's Range of Glaciers about the Whatcom Trail. He may be a bit of a mavarick, but he seems to have become as "scholarly" as possible. If nothing else, I know of no one else who is so thoroughly and first-hand acquainted with the North Cascades (US and BC), at least within recent decades. In any case, from the bit of research I did, it looked like the term "Hope Mountains" may be semi-archaic. I'm not sure. Pfly (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Might be worth noting here that an old saw ahout Hope - possibly citable in some guidebook - is that when you got to Hope, you were either finally "seeeing hope" or "giving up all hope", depending on which way you were travelling; this was usually in reference to the Fraser Canyon trails/roads but could just as easily mean the mountain passes eastward....now that I hear it more, I must aver that yes, I remember seeing it in older writings...As for the Klesilkwa being the Hozameen-Skagit Range division, that's a new one on me and sort of defeats the whole reason for the "Skagit" name ("mountains west of the Skagit River").Skookum1 (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
