High Sierra Topix

Few thoughts:
Flip writes, " I would expand on that section of JMT though, say from Agnew Meadows south through the burn area to near Purple Lake." I agree - expand it North a bit too - that stretch from Agnew to Reds sucks. Quite the comedown to leave from the majesty of 1000 Island Lake to enter the drab, over-saturated lowlands all around the lower San Joaquin area. All the Winnebagos, generators always humming, campsights right atop each other - two-story tents and color TVs - ARGH!
Parts of the June Lake loop, Virginia Lakes area too, and do not get me started on the capitalism called Bridgeport...Trail out of Twin Lakes/ Mono Village is an abomination.

Re Whitney - also underwhelmed by the endless stream of humanity - most just do summit and back, never leaving the trail and tunnel visioned on one thing only...(Half Dome section, much the same) - all peppered with TP and trash.

Bearpaw ghetto...I mean meadow I am also not huge fan of glen Aulin or vogelsang Hsc....beautiful setting but overrun

rrivera wrote:I am also not huge fan of glen Aulin or vogelsang Hsc....beautiful setting but overrun

Completely agree on GA and Vogelsang. I go "near" them but never "to" them. The only value i saw in GA was that they left the privvy open after the camp closed in late Sept, and it was a solar lit toilet. very nice touch.

We always did our best to skirt the Glen, going off-trail above and to the East. But on one trip, we had to stay, after the camp closed, and it wasn't that bad given all the tourists were gone.

Vogelsang is just a waste unless you are going there to stay.

I'll get the fur flying by starting off that I kindly disagree with Maverick's opening statement, in light of the variety that is the Andes. But if we narrow the scope to the lower 48, then I'm on board.

How about this area that is frankly not that great- most everything from south Tahoe to just south of 108 (tho this was were I was raised and have a cabin)? Two reasons, first the grazing abuses have made many of the places intolerable (grazing is allowed by law but so are the limits to the abuses which Stanislaus and Toyiabe NF refuse to enforce), and second the inherent geology- the area is dominated by volcanic rocks that don't form the kinds of stunning landscapes found to the south (but better flower gardens, but then the cows), and the range has not been uplifted as much (elevations top out around 10,000 and usually much less) so there isn't as much visual drama and alpine feel to the landscape. Sure there are some nice hidden corners, but life is short and time is better spent in the real Range of Light portion of the Sierra.

maverick wrote:I do not care for LYV, just to many people, to noisy, and this is really magnified if it is
my first trip for the season, I really have to zoom right thru it.
Plus it is not the prettiest location either.

Second this! I spent the last night of my Clark Range trip in the sprawling megalopolis of LYV campground, and it might as well have been the Valley itself--only without any amenities.

MK wrote "I'll get the fur flying by starting off that I kindly disagree with Maverick's
opening statement, in light of the variety that is the Andes."
I'll have to disagree since the Sierra is in one state, one country, unlike the
Andes which is 4300 miles, and runs through several countries, so they are not
really comparable.
Find me a range less than 400 miles long to compare that is as diverse, and beautiful
as the Sierra Nevada, not over 10 times the length!
None of those countries with the Andes running through them have the bio diversity
that the Sierra offers, each have several individual spots that are beautiful, but not
even close to 400 miles of it, and if we really take from Northern Yosemite
to Southern SEKI than we are really only talking about 270-300 miles!
To me Chile, from what I have seen, would offer the most, and the one I would visit
if I had the chance, and then Bolivia, Peru, and Argentina from the rest.

dave54 wrote:Anywhere south of tahoe, including tahoe itself.

Whuh...? I agree with you about Tahoe (it kills me that so many people think of Tahoe as synonymous with "the Sierra"), including Desolation Wilderness...but everything worth seeing in the Sierra is south of Tahoe, not north. Seriously: what on earth is there to see up that way?

(I mean in terms of landscape; obviously, there are some great wildflower areas in the northern Sierra.)

maverick wrote: Find me a range less than 400 miles long to compare that is as diverse, and beautiful
as the Sierra Nevada, not over 10 times the length!

you asked...

take a trip to the mountains of the island of Corsica - 100x50 miles and vastly different geology in each valley. When I first came to the Sierra, I was annoyed how long it took to get to something different. Guess I was spoiled by the French Island.

dave54 wrote:
Anywhere south of tahoe, including tahoe itself.

Yeah, don't come to Tahoe it sucks here.

Hi Fish

I have heard from an associate about how pretty the island is, with a great trail called
GR20, but peaks at close to only 9000 ft, and the lack of beautiful pine forested land
with sequoia's, redwoods, and numerous lakes high and low, and numerous major
rivers, I do not see a comparison, even he siting some of these differences when talking
about Corsica as compared to the sierra, he did mention great rock climbing.
This person has been to the Tibet, Alaska, New Zealand, Kenya, Chile, and Argentina
to name a few places, and said that the Sierra in his opinion is still the best.