Talk:Cascade Range

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Oregon, a comprehensive WikiProject dedicated to articles about topics related to the U.S. state of Oregon. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or join by visiting the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.

Cascade Range has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Edited Link for Mt. Washington as it took one to a page on Mount Washington in New Hampshire. This new external link will take one to Mt. Washington in Oregon, in the Cascade Mountain Range.

Contents 1 Geology 2 Error concerning Mount Garibaldi 3 History 4 North Cascades 5 Location Image for Canadian Cascades 6 Picture overload 7 Legends? 8 Source of new Medicine Lake information 9 Parentheses---exciting topic!

[edit] Geology

This article could benefit from a separation of the Geography and Geology of the Cascades, and an expansion of their geology. As is, this article gives heavy emphasis to the volcanoes (perhaps justified, as they are generally the highest); however, most of the range north of Mt. Rainier is non-volcanic or ancient volcanic (i.e. unrelated to active volcanoes) in origin. Also, a mention of the glacial history of the range would be appropriate. BlueCanoe 00:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

The glacial history of the range might be better dealt with on a regional scale, i.e. from the context of the icefield(s) rather than the range(s). What I'm suggesting here is that the entire Georgia-Puget icemass has to be considered, i.e. from the Ice Age onwards, to get a handle on the scale of glaciation's effects on the local landscape.

There's also the point that there's really three ranges involved; Shasta to Hood, St Helens/Adams to Glacier, then the spiny North Cascades into Canada, where ultimately they get kinda knoll-like (with big, nasty sharp teeth, though). So three different glacial/geologic histories, really; the Williamette - glacier? I wouldn't know if there'd been one, not in the same context as the coastal ice sheet from Puget Sound on up. The difference in type of mountain and type of glacial activity/presence is one of the issues by which the Canadian definition of the Coast Range (officially Coast Mtns) as separate from the Cascade Range, which you've probably noticed my note about.

I'm scratching my head trying to think of significant icecap-type glaciers in the Lower 48; it would have to be Olympus, wouldn't it? Rainier's and Baker's are montane glaciers, not big ice sheets studded with peaks; I'm not familiar enough with the North Cascades to know.

The Georgia-Puget Icemass which strikes me to have poured south, and towards Gray's Harbour? Or did it merge with the Georgia Glacier and the two of them push down the Strait of Juan de Fuca? I wouldn't know, but it's fairly obvious that all the coastal montane glaciers poured southwards into the Georgia Glacier so it pretty certainly wasn't flowing NW. If you're in the Pacific Northwest somewhere an excellent book to pick up (at a good bookstore, or on order) is the Sto:lo Historical Atlas; its opening maps do justice to the geologic and anthropological/cultural history, including a huge map of the regional glaciers . . .

Anyway your point about separate geology and geography is well taken; different mountain ranges have different special parameters with unique categories, too, e.g. the Cascades with its volcanoes, same with the Stikine Plateau and Katmai and Nass and the Rainbow-Ilgachuz Ranges in the Chilcotin, or Yellowstone, then there's the Pacific Ranges and Boundary Ranges with their temperate-coastal icecaps, or the block-faulting of the Rockies. Geography is description; geology is dissection and geneaolgy. Your suggestion's interesting because as I was describing the coastal fjords these last couple of days I've been pondering a chart showing the extent of the icefields 10,000 years ago.

One last item: there's interesting bits of human paleohistory turning up in the region; I've been meaning to put in Xa:ytem, which is a 9000 year old arch site near the Fraser, and in general to explore the themes of estimated populations and culture levels on the Columbia, Fraser and throughout Puget Sound - relative to volcanic and glacial activity that is. Reason I'm off on this tangent is the "pottery culture" of the lower Columbia that's turned up in recent decades, and that a huge flood or perhaps a lahar or associated volcanic events wiped it out. Same with a flourishing of population on the lower Fraser and, my understanding is, on the Nooksack and Skagit and adjoining islands as well; until Baker blew about 2000 years ago (?). Even a minor escalation in internal temperature on Baker can cause major flooding on the Skagit and Nooksack....Xa:ytem was inundated, so its legend (and its archaeology) goes, but such a flood. Apparently a couple of times the population of the Georgia Strait-Puget Sound and, parallel to it, the lower Columbia, have flourished, then been wiped out or near-decimated by earth activity (temblors, volcanoes, weather); it's throughout the legendary materials, evenSkookum1 08:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Error concerning Mount Garibaldi

I reset changes to the text that clarify the status of Mount Garibaldi as part of the Coast Mountains and NOT the Cascade Range; it is a Cascade Volcano but the Coast Mountains are NOT (repeat NOT) part of the Cascade Range, which ends at the Fraser River. I made similar changes to the Cascade Range entry previously, including some description of the Canadian portion of the range, but someone thought I was "vandalizing" the entry (by correcting its mis-statements, apparently) and reverted back, losing much of my Canadian stuff and the clarification of Mt Garibaldi's range grouping (repeat after me, Garibaldi Ranges of the Pacific Ranges of the Coast Mountains, and NO the Coast Mountains are NOT the northward extension of the Cascade Range, no more than 54-40 is the northern border of the State of Washington . . . ) Skookum1 02:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History

The following statement is misleading: "Geologists were also concerned that the St. Helens eruption would awaken other Cascade volcanoes like it did the previous century, when a total of eight erupted between 1800 and 1857." While it is true that the region was indeed active during that period, that activity was not "awakened" by Mount St. Helens. The Cascade volcanoes tend to stand in isolation from one another and are generally not linked magmaticly. Coincidental eruptions are just that, coincidences. A better phrasing might be "Geologists were also concerned that the St. Helens eruption was a sign that long-dormant Cascade volcanoes might become active once more, as in the period from 1800 to 1857 when a total of eight erupted."

above by User:Marquoz

Done as suggested. You could have changed it yourself. Vsmith 03:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North Cascades

I feel that the North Cascades deserve a separate article ("North Cascades" currently redirects here). They are quite different from the volcanoes, and quite important, at least to the climbing community. Any objections to my starting one? Should it instead be a section of this article? Comments? -- Spireguy 04:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location Image for Canadian Cascades

Created this morning by seat-of-pants while doing other BC Mountain ranges; realize now it's a non sequitur as there's nowhere to put it, really, on the main article, as there's no separate section for the Canadian Cascades, which are really part of the North Cascades (as far as the Coquihalla/Sumallo Rivers anyway). Wondering what to do here - make a separate Canadian Cascades section, or source a larger map showing the US side of the range as well? The terrain map is based on USGS data and is in Wikimedia commons as BC-relief.png; if there's a similar map, at the same scale for Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, maybe we could integrate them; will need to do the same for the Boundary Ranges with an Alaska map, too; also the St. Elias Mtns.Skookum1 16:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to start a page on the North Cascades (as I suggested above). Maybe the pic can go there. -- Spireguy 03:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi David. Well, I made a stab at a North/Canadian Cascades cross-border map, but it could use higher resolution. User:Qyd made the base map and I drew the red line; I've eyeballed the boundary to the south of the Similkameen River as the northeast boundary, and also only eyeballed the Nicoamen-Tulameen boundary; Holland describes these fairly precisely but the boundaries shown are only very rough; the more natural boundary would seem to be the Similkameen, and then via Aspen Grove to use the Nicola River to the Thompson; but Holland others are very specific about the latter area's boundary being the Nicoamen, and so likewise I imagine there's a reason of some sorts why the ridges south of the Similkameen aren't included (my boundary data in Bivouac is now invisible to me, as I'm no longer an editor nor a member); I didn't know where the southern boundary of the North Cascades should be; I took it to be the pass as shown, which I guess is the one to the south of Glacier Peak, whichever; and I assumed that Manastash and other hill-plateau towards the Okanogan River were to be included, although maybe not in formal geographical classification; some of the peak/ridges on the south side of the Similkameen aren't supposed to be in it either, according to Holland. Anyway, here's the other map to consider; scale and scope can be adjusted later, and feel free to add placenames.

Location map of North Cascades and Canadian Cascades

Skookum1 06:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not an expert on the Canadian boundary, but it looks OK. However the southern boundary should be one major drainage to the north of where it is now: you'll see a NW-SE trending valley on the west side of the range, which is the Skykomish River, and if you continue that roughly in a straight line to the eastern boundary, that is pretty good as well. (It would hit the eastern boundary where it is farthest west; that's the town of Wenatchee.) This boundary (which I use on the North Cascades page) is from Beckey. -- Spireguy 19:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture overload

I would say that the images are getting a bit much here. There are too many in the first section, and some of the other pictures don't relate well to the text they are with. Anyone want to fix that, or should I take a stab? -- Spireguy 04:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My immediate reaction is twofold: first, Mount Garibaldi should not be a featured image, as it is a Cascade Volcano and NOT part of the Cascade Range; if a Canadian summit is here it should be that big wall by the Coquihalla Highway, whatever it's called, or a view of the east flank of the Fraser Canyon, or something from Manning Park; or Slesse-Cheam; Garibaldi is the LAST thing that should be here, although in American thinking it seems to be the only peak associated with the Casacades, even though it's not even in the Cascades. Sigh. Second, the other three pics are all isolated volcanoes; one would suffice. The way I see it the pics should show the main types of terrain; the bit volcanoes, the depths/crags of the North Cascades, the plateau-escarpment of places like Cathedral Provincial Park and American equivalents, and the barren rock knolls of the Canadian Cascades (north of Highway 3, that is). Skookum1 05:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legends?

I'm going to add some details on the Canadian-side geography, but in scanning the page it occurred to me the range is somewhat rich in legends: the two that come to mind are the old "marriage" between Mts Baker and Rainier (Baker hitched up her skirts and moved northward....maybe suggesting memory of a Glacier Peak eruption followed by a Mt Baker one?) and the various legends/mythologies associated with Tahoma (Mt Rainier). And, most obvious of all although I'm sure it's covered on its own page, Mount Shasta. The main mountain legends should all maybe have brief précis on this page, I think.Skookum1 21:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you will see that some of this has been recovered since I reverted. Happy editing! Katr67 22:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source of new Medicine Lake information

I'd be interested in the source of the very interesting information that the Medicine Lake volcano is the largest by volume in the Cascade Range. These are really big mountains, and Medicine Lake certainly does not present the visual image of a large volcano - is the volume that's being measured underground? Source please! NorCalHistory 01:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was fairly common knowledge. Here's a link to the USGS CVO website which lists several references: http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/MedicineLake/description_medicine_lake.html . Medicine Lake and Newberry may be topographically dwarfed by Shasta and Rainier, but most of a volcano's volume is near the base and Medicine Lake has a very large base. FuQuaoar 01:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parentheses---exciting topic!

Regarding this:

The railway's roadbed, now decommissioned, is a popular tourist recreation destination, the Othello Tunnels, a hiking and biking trail near Hope, B.C. (waystations along the line were given Shakespearean names by the local CBC administrator).

When the parenthetical remark is a full sentence, which this is, it should be treated as such, viz:

The railway's roadbed, now decommissioned, is a popular tourist recreation destination, the Othello Tunnels, a hiking and biking trail near Hope, B.C. (Waystations along the line were given Shakespearean names by the local CBC administrator.)

This is standard style stuff, although I didn't find it specifically addressed in a quick search of WP:MOS. I didn't want to revert again, since that can be rude. But it really should be in the latter form above. (I wikilinked the Shakespeare parts, since the remark calls attention to that. Maybe a good idea, maybe not.) Comments? I can find a reference if this is controversial. -- Spireguy 20:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a style maven, but just popping in to comment that the Wikilink on "Othello Tunnels" should be

Othello Tunnels, not Othello Tunnels. The Othello Tunnels should have their own link and article; Othello if linked separately here should be Othello, British Columbia - theoretically, but it was only a whistlestop; there may be a TransCanada Trail]] article/section on the Tunnels, but they' re a unit and go by that name; there's no point in referring to the Shakespeare character/play as it would be linked in any Othello Tunnel article; I think I didn't link it before, if it was me who put it in, as there was no article yet. The Shakespeare ref should go to the Bard here (the section head's daughter was an actress or literary student) but be advised that some other Shakespeare-placenames in BC may be named for Noah Shakespeare, a one-time Victoria civic politician and member of the legislature (or Member of Parliament).Skookum1 21:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

My own thoughts are based on whether the parenthetical remark is a separate thought, or closely tied to the thoughts in the main sentence. If the remark is simply explanatory or otherwise closely connected to the main sentence, I leave it as part of the main sentence. If, on the other hand, the remark offers contrast or only distantly-related information, I make it a separate sentence. Examples:

"The quick brown fox jumped over the dog (the dog had been asleep since noon)."

"The quick brown fox jumped over the dog. (Interestingly, foxes seldom are found in this part of the country.)"

That said, while your courtesy is appreciated, I can see that reasonable people could differ on their approach! Please feel free to revert. NorCalHistory 06:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that we've cleared that up, I think there are too many commas in the thing, and for clarity it should probably read like this (though I am rather overfond of dashes). :)

The railway's roadbed, now decommissioned, is a popular tourist recreation destination—the Othello Tunnels—a hiking and biking trail near Hope, B.C. (Waystations along the line were given Shakespearean names by the local CBC administrator.)

Katr67 06:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you've gotten me curious, I did some poking around. [This grammar site] has two examples of the treatment of parenthetical remarks which are a complete sentence. In one example, the remark is a part of the main sentence, and in the other example, it is expressed as a separate sentence:

"Forty-three years after his death, Robert Frost (we remember him at Kennedy’s inauguration) remains America’s favorite poet."

"Forty-three years after his death, Robert Frost remains America’s favorite poet. (We remember him at Kennedy’s inauguration.)"

I believe that a parenthetical thought which is a complete sentence can be expressed either as a part of the main sentence, or as a separate parenthetical sentence; simply because it is a complete sentence does not require that it be treated as a separate sentence. Again, reasonable minds can differ about Shakespeare, Othello, Desdemona and Iago, as well as about Othello Tunnels! Please feel free to revert! NorCalHistory 07:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your reasoning, but I disagree. I think it's more about grammar than about semantics; I don't think that the crucial thing is how the idea in the parenthesis fits with the idea in the main sentence. In your two examples from the grammar site, note that in the first example, the parenthetical remark is embedded in the main sentence, so it would be impossible to treat it as a separate sentence. The key for our case is whether this would be appropriate:

"Forty-three years after his death, Robert Frost remains America’s favorite poet (we remember him at Kennedy’s inauguration)."

That is what I object to; I don't believe it is correct. Sadly, I still don't have time to go digging for this. -- Spireguy 15:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)