Letter to the Sage editor, 2/8/92

As I was reading the DPS minutes printed in the last Sage, I saw where a couple of people wanted to change the names of some of the DPS peaks because the benchmark (BM) read differently. This is a bad idea and here is why...
All six of the peaks listed are named on the USGS maps as peaks or mountains (eg. Brown Peak, Grapevine Peak). Brown Peak is NOT Evelyn "peak". It is Brown Peak which happens to have a BM named Evelyn at the peak.
To infer "peak", "mountain" or "point" status on a BM is being inconsistent with the maps. For instance, Rosa "Point" should only be listed as Rosa (or Rosa BM) as it is NOT named Rosa "Point" on the map. (It is also NOT in Riverside County, but is in San Diego County. Let's change this error in the guide, for consistency sake.)
If a BM happens to be at the high point of a mountain range, then the name should be that of the range, NOT the BM. (eg. Providence Mtn with BM Edgar only became Edgar Peak when named "Edgar Peak" on a new USGS map.)
Did you know Mt Waterman has BM Twin and Buckhorn (aka Akawie) has BM Waterman! How's that for confusion. My personal favorite is BM Fang on Rattlesnake Mtn. The purpose of a BM is for triangulation, NOT naming peaks.
In summary, let's be consistent and let the USGS tell us what we should name a peak or mountain. If it is listed as a peak or mountain on the map we should list it as such. If it is the high point of the range and is only a BM, then it should be named for the range. If it is only a BM DO NOT infer greater status on it (There is NO "point in Rosa Pt, nor a mountain in Mitchell Mtn). LET'S BE CONSISTENT!
Paul --Paul Freiman, Founder
San Diego Peaks Club

MORE ON PEAKS!

Whenever there is a proposal presented to add more peaks to the DPS Peaks List we seem to get much opposition to the proposal. Considering the way most of us are addicted to bag them, you would think that any proposed peak would be embraced.
Our minds must work similar to our muscles. My muscles can complete any hike that they start, but if they go beyond the scheduled hike, even one step, they will be rebelling. The same with the list. When we join the Section, we know that there are "x" number of peaks, and that we must climb them all. Once it is done, that will be the end. Adding another peak in the middle of our quest is not psychologically acceptable (and at the end is even worse. .ed)
Ninety six peaks is an odd number, besides, I can never remember it. Therefore I am proposing that we set the number of peaks at one hundred. (I can hear the ones in the middle). This would be the total number of peaks from now on. For those of us who wish to climb ever more new ones, we should establish another list, which we could change whenever the majority of the voters decides to do so. Instead of an emblem, we could get a ribbon, or a patch, or honorable mention in the SAGE.
Some of the peaks for starters could be:
Crater Mtn
Needle Eye
Papago Mtn
McGruder
No Nopah
Carson
Clipper
Tinajas Atlas..ed
Soda Mtn
Mojave Peak
Ship Mtn
Cerro Gordo
Epaulet
Thimbal
Marble
Cave Mtn
Cabeza Prieta
Blue Dick
Umpah
Kelbaholtz
Paloverde
Foshay
Maris
If any one is interested, contact me. --Maris Valkass
 
Page Index Prev Page 10 Next Issue Index