Re: Poll: "Intimidation Factor": Mt. Dana vs. Lembert Dome

I'm interested in hearing what those that have done both Dana & Lembert Dome think.

Obviously, this query has nothing to do with the level of exertion needed to make it to the top of the respective features.

Here's what and why I'm asking: I want to do Dana, and know that I'm up to it physically (was planning on doing it this trip, but ran out of time). However, I find Lembert Dome to be a little intimidating. The angle is steep enough that slipping isn't out of the question; and if you did slip it looks like nothing would stop your fall until you landed in Tuolumne Meadows.

So which of the two (Dana or Lembert) do you think is more intimidating?



Post Edited (09-01-08 20:02)

sierranomad wrote:

> I'm interested in hearing what those that have done both Dana &
> Lembert Dome think.
>
> Obviously, this query has nothing to do with the level of
> exertion needed to make it to the top of the respective
> features.
>
> Here's what and why I'm asking: I want to do Dana, and know
> that I'm up to it physically (was planning on doing it this
> trip, but ran out of time). However, I find Lembert Dome to be
> a little intimidating. The angle is steep enough that slipping
> isn't out of the question; and if you did slip it looks like
> nothing would stop your fall until you landed in Tuolumne
> Meadows.
>
> So which of the two (Dana or Lembert) do you think is more
> intimidating?
>

The sheer exertion of the climbs notwithstanding ~ and based on your criterion - Lembert does indeed give one a sense that one false move could result in a fatal slip. Even though one is not fatigued at Lembert's top, the walk across it requires enough care so as to make one uneasy. The walk up the Half Dome cables gives one a similar sense of adventure.

However, the potential for "falling off" Dana, as one might fall off Lembert Dome, is nearly nil, unless one ventures way too close to - in fact, a little bit over - the very edge of the cirque on its north side, and this would be unusual. On any route, there is virtually no chance of falling more than a few feet...although this could hurt as well, since the second half of the climb involves walking and minor scrambling over large, often sharp rocks and boulders.

Even the cliff above the cirque is stable enough to approach closely for excellent near-vertical views downward. Perhaps the greatest risk of losing altitude too quickly would be an uncontrolled slip down the 12,000-foot high summer snowfield. It is not necessary to cross the snowfield to attain the top, however, if you insist on crossing the big snowfield near the summit either ascending or descending, you may wish to carry an ice axe for self-belay, just in case. This year, with so little snowpack, I would not bother.

To finalize, I think Lembert is more intimidating, by a significant margin, by your criterion.

---

Wilderness forever,
Bruce Jensen

Thanks Bruce, I'll keep Dana on my list.

You mention Half Dome, which I've done several times. I'm fine on the cables because you've got something to hold on to; so if you slip (and you've got a good grip) you'll be OK.

Dana IMO is not intimidating at all.

THIS is intimidating:


This is Harrison Pass in SEKI. Cannot believe their was a "trail" on this.
It's >500 ft. of scree loving fun.

---

Everything I know I learned from

bill-e-g wrote:

> Dana IMO is not intimidating at all.
>
> THIS is intimidating:
>
>
> This is Harrison Pass in SEKI. Cannot believe their was a
> "trail" on this.
> It's >500 ft. of scree loving fun.
>

Kind of reminds me of the section between the east and west summits of Round Top, although it's hard to really get a sense of steepness in your 2D pic





Post Edited (09-02-08 10:35)

bill-e-g wrote:

> Dana IMO is not intimidating at all.

Did you look over the edge at the glacier?

!!!!???

Wow! I'd use "death defying"

> Did you look over the edge at the glacier?

I looked over the edge, yes. Did not have to traverse down it...
(I guess I didn't HAVE to go down Harrison Pass either though... but
what fun would that be?)
(NO way would I have done it without hiking sticks!)

Again, Dana is my nemesis though... I need to try it again and not drive
home the same day...

This is a minor point regarding Lembert Dome but still worth knowing if you have never been up there. Don't make the same mistake I did in July. Having nobody else in sight to tell me the way I ended up climbing the top portion of the dome from the same direction as the trail out of the woods. Turns out that's the steepest way to go! One should traverse around the left (eastern) side just below the summit to find the easiest and safest route to the top. Once I reached the top there were other hikers up there who showed me the correct way up and down.

Jim

Thanks Jim. I did make it to the top, and via the way that you point out, but I wasn't real keen on it.

It does lead to another question though. When I got to the top, I noticed that directly below and in front was another "dome" if you will; I didn't expect that. Was I really on the top of Lembert Dome? If so, what is that?

Jon,

I'm not sure what dome you are referring to unless it's the one on the north side of Lembert that you can access from the trail just before coming out of the woods. You look that way from the edge of the woods and see a sheet of granite covered with lots of erratics left by the last glaicer. Looking down on it from the top of Lembert makes the end of it look like a dome. We used the trail on the Dog Lake approach and took pictures of a small pond behind that rock thinking it was the back side of Lembert. When we got higher we realized it was actually blocking our view of Lembert. The classic view of Lembert Dome from TM reveals that section but I think we tend to zero in on Lembert and our brains don't always register the other piece on the north side. When you get up there you say, "What's that?"

Jim

Intimidation factor? Try Angels Landing in Zion NP. People fall to their deaths on a fairly regular basis.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/41039231@N00/63125170/

y_p_w wrote:

> Intimidation factor? Try Angels Landing in Zion NP. People
> fall to their deaths on a fairly regular basis.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/41039231@N00/63125170/

Indeed, Angel's Landing is not good for anyone with vertigo! There are a couple of sections where the only thing between you and a 1,000-foot drop is thin air; the railing / grab-chain being on the *uphill* side!

Speaking of Utah, there is a section of the trail to Delicate Arch that, while not as narrow, still has a precipitous drop on one edge. The walk up on top of Cassidy Arch at Capitol Reef is nothing to sneeze at either.

---

Wilderness forever,
Bruce Jensen

bpnjensen wrote:

> y_p_w wrote:
>
> > Intimidation factor? Try Angels Landing in Zion NP. People
> > fall to their deaths on a fairly regular basis.
> >
> >
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/41039231@N00/63125170/
>
> Indeed, Angel's Landing is not good for anyone with vertigo!
> There are a couple of sections where the only thing between you
> and a 1,000-foot drop is thin air; the railing / grab-chain
> being on the *uphill* side!

I looked it up, and apparently there are only 5 non-suspicious fatalities on Angels Landing since the NPS took over, but that may not be updated. I looked up that last year there were a couple of fatalities in June - a 53 year old man named Barry Goldstein, and a 14 year old kid named Kristoffer Jones.

> Speaking of Utah, there is a section of the trail to Delicate
> Arch that, while not as narrow, still has a precipitous drop on
> one edge. The walk up on top of Cassidy Arch at Capitol Reef
> is nothing to sneeze at either.

Been there, done that. This photo isn't mine.



It was blasted into the side of the sandstone and flattened (slightly canted towards the wall and not the cliff) into a ledge that runs about 200 feet. I was prepared to be all scared but found it uneventful. The fall might be less than 100 feet at a very sharp angle. Half Dome is scarier and you don't have to hold on to anything since the ledge is at least 6 ft wide except for a few narrow sections. I've never heard of any fatality, but a sign on the trail warns about the exposed areas, and to "control your children".

I found the Yosemite Creek bridge (in winter) near the mouth of Upper Yosemite Fall to be scarier. I treaded slowly in fear of slipping, since there's not a full barrier (like a fence or grating) on the sides of the bridge. I could imagine someone sliding under the first beam, which is maybe 3 ft above the walkway surface.

Thanks, Jim.

That must be what it was.

The dome on the north side of Lembert (connected via a saddle) is called Dog Dome according to a 15' topo of Tuolumne Meadows published by Wilderness Press.



Post Edited (09-04-08 09:13)

---

THE YOSEMITE POST
Voice of the Rocky Marmot Empire

There you go, Jon. The man found it actually has a name and a very appropriate one at that. It's 200' below Lembert Dome.

Jim

Thanks Jim & Len.

My Trails Illustrated map of Yosemite doesn't give that level of detail for Lembert Dome.

I just got back from Tuolumne Meadows, and I did both. I must say, Dana is FAR more intimidating. Dana LOOMS over everything, over all the other huge mountains, over TM, over Lembert Dome. We did Dana on our 3rd day, and every time we'd see it, I'd get nervous. Not because I felt like I would die, but because of how GIGANTIC it is!

We climbed Lembert Dome the first day we got there as a little late afternoon fun hike to get familiar with the lay of the land (great views from LD). I suppose if you have some really really bad fear of heights, then perhaps the steepness in some parts may be scary, but never once did I ever feel like I was in any way in danger.

Here's what intimdated me about Dana. Let's start with this: 13,053'. 23% average grade, 30% once the mountain really kicks in. Sections of class 2-3 hiking. You ever wonder how you are going to breathe with 40% less O2 hiking up a 30% AVERAGE slope over talus fields and some class 3 boulders?

To me, THAT'S intimidating.

Glad you enjoyed it. I thought for sure Dana was only class 2.
(I guess I need to do it again to jog my memory)

Class 3 boulders? Check this out:





This is the slide in Slide Canyon. I need to mention that we went AROUND it on the way back! (took us over an hour to go thru it (1/2 mile)).

How about a picture of your Dana hike?

bill-e-g wrote:


> How about a picture of your Dana hike?

Little late, but some great views!

Those are surely class 3 rocks, yikes! I'm sure I embellish a little on calling that scree pile on Dana anything like real class 3 boulders, but it makes it sound more exciting!

I'll post a few once I download my card, then upload them to my Flickr page.

Where is Slide Canyon?



Post Edited (09-09-08 14:40)

Slide Canyon is the canyon below the Sawtooth Ridge. It contains
the headwaters of Piute Creek.
If you look on your park map you will see Slide Mountain in the NE
corner of the park. The photo above is the area where on the map
the river "disappears".
It's really an incredible feature, a HUGE slide slid down this mountain
and some of the rocks actually went up the other side.
If you have Google Earth you can easily see it.
I think I have a picture of it from Matterhorn Peak at home...

bill-e-g wrote:

> Slide Canyon is the canyon below the Sawtooth Ridge. It
> contains
> the headwaters of Piute Creek.
> If you look on your park map you will see Slide Mountain in the
> NE
> corner of the park. The photo above is the area where on the
> map
> the river "disappears".
> It's really an incredible feature, a HUGE slide slid down this
> mountain
> and some of the rocks actually went up the other side.
> If you have Google Earth you can easily see it.
> I think I have a picture of it from Matterhorn Peak at home...

Spectacular! Thanks, guys, now I wanna go there... :-)

---

Wilderness forever,
Bruce Jensen