Camels Hump, VT

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Paradox

New member
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
2,268
Reaction score
314
Location
Holderness, NH, Avatar: Pine Marten on Mt Field
The Camels Hump in Vermont occasionally called the "Crouching Lion" is one of my inspirational mountains. Perhaps the thing I find most interesting about it is that it is so identifyable from most any viewpoint.

From the viewpoint a few hundred feet north of the summit of Mt. Allen in the ADK's. Camel's Hump is 71 degrees true and 55 miles away.



Here it is again from Dix, 48 miles away at 70 degrees true.



This is the view from the Gordon Landing - Cumberland Head Ferry. Camels Hump is 36 miles away at 138 degrees true, still with its very recognizable profile.



I have seen it many times from the east such as the summit of Lafayette and VT Route 302, but alas the photos are not very good.
 
I have to agree even though I've never climbed it. It's just so distinguishable and so visible from so many places that I've always liked it.

One thing, though. It's traditional name is actually "Couching Lion." It's a heraldic term. It was named by Champlain.
 
I agree, Camels Hump is a wonderful mountain. I grew up a 45-minute bike ride from the Bamforth Ridge trailhead on River Road, and it was more or less where I fell in love with hiking in the first place as a kid. I've been up it at least once most years since the mid 80's. I think I've climbed it in every month except April, and I've watched several of the most phenomenal sunrises I've ever witnessed from its summit. I'm headed there tomorrow morning with my whole family. This will be my son's first trip up (he's five years old). We'll make the Monroe->Alpine->LT->Monroe loop so as to visit the plane crash and then approach the summit by the interesting south-side scramble.

It's a very special place.
 
One thing, though. It's traditional name is actually "Couching Lion." It's a heraldic term. It was named by Champlain.

It's traditional name is Camel's Hump. It's earliest European name, attributed to, as Taconic says, Samuel de Champlain, is "Le lion couchant," which is French for "resting lion."

As Walter Collins O'Kane put it in his 1926 book, Trails and Summits of the Green Mountains, "The phrase refers to a term used in heraldry and is rightly translated into English as the 'Couching,' not the 'Crouching,' Lion. It signifies rest and repose, rather than alertness or the imminence of attack."

In 1798, the mountain was labeled "Camel's Rump" on the map included in Ira Allen's History of Vermont. This usage continued as late as 1824, in Zadock Thompson's gazetteer. (O'Kane, Trails & Summits..., 1926)

O'Kane continues, saying that the Waubanakee tribe called it "Tawàbodi é wàdso," meaning "the mountain that is like a seat."

Nevertheless, since the middle of the nineteenth century, it has traditionally been known as Camel's Hump.

P.s. Contrary to what some may think, it is not on the Aetherius Society's list of "the nineteen Holy Mountains of the world."
 
Last edited:
39085_1242971293551_1807428599_485335_4672818_n.jpg
 
Well, this post inspired me. I have to plan a vacation day and drive up.
I've hiked it twice and love this peak. I remember that the only downside for me is the drive up to Waterbury takes longer than the hike itself.
DaveG.
 
I frequently volunteer on the Franconia Ridge, and when visability allows, point out Camels Hump to other hikers. It's the most recognizable profile in the Green Mountains, 63 miles away.
 
From Mt Carrigain, NH (about 100km):

Man... That makes me wish I'd brought my 70-200L for my Carrigain sunrise climb a few years back. I was so fixated on my immediate surroundings that I don't think I shot anything narrower than 16mm. :(
 
*whimper*
I ohsobadly want that lens. If I start saving now, maybe by Christmas 2012?
Well, you could always do what I did: Give up on the f/2.8 IS version and get the much more affordable plain f/4 :p It's still a great lens at a fraction of the cost. Just be prepared to shoot from a tripod in low light.
 
Well, you could always do what I did: Give up on the f/2.8 IS version and get the much more affordable plain f/4 :p It's still a great lens at a fraction of the cost. Just be prepared to shoot from a tripod in low light.

I couldn't do it. :) I've tasted the f/2.8 by borrowing it from a coworker to shoot at the Boston Marathon. While the depth of field gets wicked shallow, the results are just stunning. I'll just have to wait until after paying for the next round of house projects...
 
But neither would get you that shot. That was taken at 300mm, using a tripod and a Tamron 28-300 lens at f/22.
 
Top