September turns on Skyscraper (24 Sept 2011)

[mtnbikerskierchick]

Winter is around the corner. Ski movies are getting us amped up. And this board needs a little ski stoke. So, here you go

Ever since the spring became "endless winter", I've been talking about skiing all the months of this year. While I have no goal of doing this every year, with the snow bountiful, it seemed like the year to do it. Skiberly is quickly approaching 12 years of skiing every month of the year. So, it wasn't hard to convince her to join me as she had not had her September turns. Skyscraper Glacier which is actually just a snowfield) and that became our destination.

A view of Skyscraper, the larger snow field on the right, from Rollins Pass.


The hike to the line was easy and scenic.



In less than an hour we stood overlooking Skyscraper Glacier. Kim, checking it out.


It was good to be on snow again!

Photo courtesy of skiberly.

Skiberly dropping in, in true Skiberly-style, with a skirt.


Skiberly making her September turns.




My turn. The snow was pretty good for September turns on last season's snow.

Photo courtesy of skiberly.


Photo courtesy of skiberly.

At the bottom of our ski.


After our ski the bushwhacking and willow-bashing began and lasted for over an hour. We eventually met back up with the trail and admired other potential ski lines.



Another fantastic day out on a fun summer ski with a fabulous friend. Thanks Skiberly! That wraps up 116 days of skiing for me this season. Hopefully October turns will be wrought with next season's pow!


For a few more pics from this day, check out my blog post.

[Lamothe]

coverage looked pretty good for sept!

[powdork]

very nice. i've often wondered at what point a perennial snowfield becomes a glacier.

[smuggs]

12 years in a row, thats fuckin awesome! nice work ladies!

[bendtheski]

Quality TR and great pics!

[mtnbikerskierchick]

very nice. i've often wondered at what point a perennial snowfield becomes a glacier.

I believe snowfields are distinguished from glaciers because they don't have glacier-like behavior- movement downhill, carving out valleys in the rock, and forming crevasses along the way because they are moving. To my knowledge, we don't have any snow glaciers here in Colorado, only snowfields. But, on Slumgullion pass you can see a landslide glacier.

[smuggs]

how big is the hike?

[mtnbikerskierchick]

Less than an hour to the snowfield, and a little more than an hour out. The route out involves some bushwhacking, unless you find the pseudo-trial, which we found at first but then lost.

[skiracer88_00]

I believe snowfields are distinguished from glaciers because they don't have glacier-like behavior- movement downhill, carving out valleys in the rock, and forming crevasses along the way because they are moving. To my knowledge, we don't have any snow glaciers here in Colorado, only snowfields. But, on Slumgullion pass you can see a landslide glacier.

looks much better than it usually does this time of year..

If I am not mistaken, South Arapaho is an actual glacier

[Mike_Records]

Love the stoke!

If I am not mistaken, South Arapaho is an actual glacier

As for Colorado glaciers, I agree with skiracer that Arapahoe Glacier is a real glacier because it does move as can be seen by the visible crevassing that mtbskierchick mentioned glaciers have. Also there are several rock glaciers slightly further north towards and in RMNP which are glaciers that are covered by an insulating layer of rocks.

[mtnbikerskierchick]

Yes, I know we have lots of rock glaciers here in CO too. And I do think you're right, that South Araphahoe is a true glacier. Forgot about that one because no one is allowed on it It is the largest permanent body of snow in Colorado. I was just reading up and there are 135 permanent bodies of snow in Colorado. But, I can't find information on which ones are considered true glaciers vs. snowfields. I do know many things are named glaciers but are actually snowfields, which makes things confusing to me. Anyway, an interesting site to check out : http://glaciers.us/Glaciers-Colorado

[Mike_Records]

Thats a cool website! Those pictures of Arapahoe glacier in 1900 vs now are crazy, I had no idea it had shrunk that much. It certainly is a shame no one is allowed up there, I always fantasize how awesome skiing it would be this time of year with a foot of new snow...

[SILENCER]

Ahhh, my old friend Skyscraper...well done ladies.





So back to the Arapahoe. I know we're not allowed on it because it's city water supply. That can't be the only reason can it? I mean, the Boulder Res is water supply too, and boats churn exhaust, people piss in it, beer is spilled, etc for months and months. Are they worried about a Clif Bar wrapper contaminating the water supply up on the glacier? Jeeeeebus. So frustrating.

It's gotta be some other protected species deal or something I hope? Right? Biologists chime in.

[Slaag Master]

endless winter!

[Mike_Records]

So back to the Arapahoe. I know we're not allowed on it because it's city water supply. That can't be the only reason can it? I mean, the Boulder Res is water supply too, and boats churn exhaust, people piss in it, beer is spilled, etc for months and months. Are they worried about a Clif Bar wrapper contaminating the water supply up on the glacier? Jeeeeebus. So frustrating.

It's gotta be some other protected species deal or something I hope? Right? Biologists chime in.

To the best of my understanding there are basically two reasons the City of Boulder Watershed is closed to the public.

The first being the water supply, but not just for the pollution aspect that you mentioned. But in terms of pollution, Boulder res goes through a different treatment plant than the Betasso plant where the watershed water is routed through, if there were more pollution in the water coming down from the mountains for treatment then they would have to change their treatment scheme there, not that any of us are advocating power boats on those lake . But, more important in terms of water supply is resource protection and the impact that human traffic can have on a water supply particularly in respect to erosion. This erosion can just be due to increased foot traffic, or in a worst case scenario a human caused wild fire that would lead to massive erosion and silt up the reservoirs up there. Then the lakes would have to be dredged, this happened up by Fort Collins (can't remember the name of the fire or the reservoir), but the silt has been a huge problem in terms of reducing the usable reservoir volume.

Second, the two valleys that make up the watershed closure are the only areas on the Front Range that are relatively untouched by human impact making them a very valuable and unique resource for the University of Colorado as a field research site.

Anyways that is my personal understanding and interpretation, I'm sure I'm missing some details there, but reasons that in my opinion make it a justified closure even if I am bummed about it.

[shera]

Nicely done ladies.

12 years is such a long time to keep up the monthly thing. I did it a few years and got distracted.

As for the walk out of there, I just don't believe there's a path. You want there to be, you think there is. But you always end up in the shrubbery whack whack. Seems like I'd been hugging as far right as I could the last times, try to stay on the snow. It's been a while...