N.J. climbers explore lesser-known mountains, hard-to-reach peaks

the_swede · Feb 22, 2010

The NJ1K Club was featured in today's Newark Star-Ledger. It even made the front page of their paper!

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/nj_hiking_group_explores_lesse.html

Raymond · Feb 23, 2010

Sorry to read that Bruce Scofield is laid up. His ‘‘High Peaks of the Northeast’’ was a big inspiration for me.

Also sorry to see that none of the Star-Ledger editors caught this:

‘‘Fewer than half of them have official trials,...’’

Trials?

Solitary · Feb 23, 2010

Elevation snobbery

I was amused by this bit of the article:

"The magic number for most peakbagging lists is about 4,000 feet, like the Adirondack 46, named for the number of peaks, and the New Hampshire 48.

For comparison’s sake, New Jersey’s High Point soars to 1,803 feet.

“We’ve called it peakbagging because we have a sense of humor,” said Jeff Bennett,..."

That was amusing to me because some of my friends from the West feel the same way about the 46 and the 48, as in: "Mountains? There are no mountains east of the Mississippi!"

Thanks for posting this great story.

Chugach001 · Feb 23, 2010

Good for you.

I used to live in Louisiana and regret not targeting all peaks above 200'. I think there are at least a dozen.

sierra · Feb 23, 2010

After the 14ers in CO, Im looking for something else, New Jersey is NOT one of my choices, A 1083 ft

those poor bastards. I will tip my hat to them for at least getting out and trying thou.

the_swede · Feb 23, 2010

sierra said:
After the 14ers in CO, Im looking for something else, New Jersey is NOT one of my choices, A 1083 ft those poor bastards. I will tip my hat to them for at least getting out and trying thou.

I guess you could say it's not always about the destination (or the height of the destination) but the journey. It's possible to spend an entire day traversing across hills in the Jersey Highlands and accumulate 3,000 or 4,000 feet. And when you arbitrarily hike up hills of a certain elevation, you throw yourself into some pretty obscure areas where you would never ever otherwise hike. I can certainly say I had a good time doing them all. I learned all about the natural history, the geography and of course, I got my peakbagging fix without driving 5 hours north.

And our highest mountain is 1,803'!

Chip · Feb 23, 2010

the_swede said:
I guess you could say it's not always about the destination (or the height of the destination) but the journey. It's possible to spend an entire day traversing across hills in the Jersey Highlands and accumulate 3,000 or 4,000 feet. And when you arbitrarily hike up hills of a certain elevation, you throw yourself into some pretty obscure areas where you would never ever otherwise hike. I can certainly say I had a good time doing them all. I learned all about the natural history, the geography and of course, I got my peakbagging fix without driving 5 hours north.

And our highest mountain is 1,803'!

Agree, Congrats and Good On You. There are different stages or goals of hiking and climbing that remind me of the Five Stages of a Hunter. There's nothing particularly "right" or "wrong" with any stage; 1)Shooter, 2)Limiting Out, 3)Trophy, 4) Method and 5) Sportsman. Peakbagging has always reminded me of the Limiting Out or Trophy stage. Again, nothing wrong with those, but they might lack the appreciation and respect achieved in the 4th and 5th stages.

Getting out there and enjoying it, wherever "it" is, is what's important. We don't all live at the feet of 4 or 14k'ers.

the_swede · Feb 23, 2010

Raymond said:
Sorry to read that Bruce Scofield is laid up. His ‘‘High Peaks of the Northeast’’ was a big inspiration for me.

Also sorry to see that none of the Star-Ledger editors caught this:

‘‘Fewer than half of them have official trials,...’’

Trials?

They also misspelled "Pochuck Mountain". It's not Pochunk.

the_swede · Feb 23, 2010

Chugach001 said:
Good for you.

I used to live in Louisiana and regret not targeting all peaks above 200'. I think there are at least a dozen.

Too bad you didn't. You coulda also bagged all of Florida's "high peaks".

the_swede · Feb 23, 2010

Solitary said:
I was amused by this bit of the article:

"The magic number for most peakbagging lists is about 4,000 feet, like the Adirondack 46, named for the number of peaks, and the New Hampshire 48.

For comparison’s sake, New Jersey’s High Point soars to 1,803 feet.

“We’ve called it peakbagging because we have a sense of humor,” said Jeff Bennett,..."

That was amusing to me because some of my friends from the West feel the same way about the 46 and the 48, as in: "Mountains? There are no mountains east of the Mississippi!"

Thanks for posting this great story.

Total elevation snobbery! Either way, vertical ascent from trailhead to summit can be pretty close between the 4,000+ foot eastern molehills and the 14,000+ foot western behemoths.

Raymond · Feb 23, 2010

By the way, what’s the minimum rise above the col for these mountains to qualify?

the_swede · Feb 23, 2010

Raymond said:
By the way, what’s the minimum rise above the col for these mountains to qualify?

200 feet of interpolated prominence.

Raymond · Feb 23, 2010

Thanks. I’d wondered how carefully the originators of the list had considered that factor.

Are you one of them?

the_swede · Feb 23, 2010

Raymond said:
Thanks. I’d wondered how carefully the originators of the list had considered that factor.

Are you one of them?

Yeah, the 200 foot col requirement was pretty arbitrary. I came up with the idea two years ago to create a peakbagging list of 1,000 footers in NJ and then, being a computer science student, I decided to create the website.

jjmcgo · Feb 25, 2010

Good point Swede

Mt. Isolation is 4,004 feet. Pinkham Notch, 2,034 feet. Differential, 1,970 feet.
Milford, Pa., is 500 feet. High Point is 1,803. Differential, 1,304 feet.
Both long, uphill walks but not killer.

sierra · Feb 25, 2010

the_swede said:
Total elevation snobbery! Either way, vertical ascent from trailhead to summit can be pretty close between the 4,000+ foot eastern molehills and the 14,000+ foot western behemoths.

Hear we go with that augument again, while the elevation gain maybe close, the mounatins are not close in stature at all, you would really have to try to fall to your death in the whites, while there are many peaks out west in CO where its much easier.

cbcbd · Feb 26, 2010

<snobbery>Sorry Sierra, we all know that the real mountains of the lower 48 all reside in WA.</snobbery>

rup · Feb 27, 2010

Some of those summits involve territory occupied by the Jackson Whites. Many people who have wandered there have gone permanently missing,and not because of Bigfoot.

ColdRiverRun · Feb 27, 2010

Lets keep in mind that the underbrush gets real dense and is a PITA at lower elevation too. The Catskills are pretty tame kittens (PUN) until you run into a nice long stretch of Pickers for example. Then you'll have to drink tea and honey for a few days while your throat recovers from all the swearing.

the_swede · Feb 27, 2010

rup said:
Some of those summits involve territory occupied by the Jackson Whites. Many people who have wandered there have gone permanently missing,and not because of Bigfoot.

Haha, that is true. Though, I've never heard of people going missing. The Ramapough Indians have always been very gracious whenever I've run into them.

N.J. climbers explore lesser-known mountains, hard-to-reach peaks

Help Support vftt.org:

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

New member

New member

Similar threads

Join the conversation!

Join today and get all the highlights of this community direct to your inbox. It's FREE!