Peak List Changes

At the March meeting, when I nominated Soda Mtn. for addition to the peaks list, it was stated by another member that Soda Mtn. was not good enough for the list. What makes a peak good enough? Is it distance in miles to the top and back? Is it the amount of gain? Is it the view from the top, the difficulty of the climb, the beauty of the area? If the Section went through the current list, I'm sure members would readily agree that at least two-thirds to three-quarters of the peaks deserve to be on the list. However, if we were to require the remaining listed peaks to pass muster again, would we now add peaks such as Orocopia (4 mi rt, 1300' gain), Nelson (1-1/2 mi, 1400'), Jacumba (I haven't climbed this by the short route, but it is short), Chuckwalla (2-3/4 mi, 1650'), Stepladder (10-1/2 mi or less, 1500'), Pleasant (6 mi, 1850'), Grapevine (4 mi, 1900'), Stirling (3 mi, 1525'), Old Dad (3-3/4 mi, 1825'), Black Butte (4-1/2 mi, 1725'), Big Maria (4-1/2 mi, 2150'), or some others with a little more gain? I felt that Soda Mtn (4-1/2 ml, 1900' gain) was as good as many of these, and even Cave Mtn (6 mi, 2000' gain) could be added because of its domination of the area it is in. Clipper (5-1/2 ml, 2725' gain) was a nice climb from Hummingbird Spring, with interesting route finding, and would certainly merit addition to the list; unfortunately, since the exploratory climb, a route was found from the north under the freeway (which most DPS'ers won't use) which cut the distance and gain down. New routes have been found to peaks already on the list, but they have not been removed; remember when Black Butte used to be climbed from Corn Spring and Jacumba from Mortero Palms? Consider the new short route to Kofa, an emblem peak. I feel that we should be reasonable about adding new peaks to the list, and not require that they match Montgomery or Inyo or Baboquivari.
But I do draw the line, so to speak, at the Mexican border. I have two reasons for this. The first is the general lack of maps. Yes, there are Mexican topos coming out now. But they are hard to obtain and are inaccurate -- as an example, Big Picacho is located incorrectly on the map. The second and more important reason is supported by the record of climbs of Big Picacho. If someone on a climb gets hurt, you've got trouble with a capital T. Where is your friendly local sheriff or ranger or mountain rescue team? Nowhere near and not easy to notify. And you had better not have any car troubles or lose car keys either. Let's leave the group of Mexican peaks as is and not add others. Incidentally, when El Mayor was climbed, it was not on a scheduled exploratory; the scheduled exploratory was scrubbed. I'm not sure the others nominated (other than Matomi) were climbed on BPS scheduled exploratories, and I feel peaks should be added to the list only after such climbs.
Another subject which upset people was the proposed deletion of Maturango and Argus on the Naval Weapons Center. I don't feel strongly about this, but I lean toward delisting. I climbed these peaks on a trip led by Fred Camphausen of NWC, but it was not a DPS scheduled trip. How long is it since a climb of Maturango was scheduled by the Section and put in the Chapter schedule? If you don't have friends who can get you inside the base, then access is illegal, even though you can avoid detection. What happens, though, if you do get caught, or an accident requiring help occurs? I think it might be better if the Section avoids such problems.


  Dick Akawie
 
Page Index Prev Page 4 Next Issue Index