Gannett Peak/Wind River Range

Also here is some good info on Snowpack for the area, ya I know it's not going to cover the mountains/upper elevations, though surrounding areas are covered.

wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/da…

Gitrinec wrote:Depending on weather conditions, etc.. I'm going to try to take pictures mark some spots with the GPS when I'm there but only if that area allows it, lol I really don't think being there for longer than I have to is overly smart...

Agree, in and out, not panicky, just in control of it all.

The following describes a very dangerous, tempting route off Gannett, just below the summit before it joins Gooseneck ridge. "Tempting" defined as a get-off-quick way down, i.e., a bail. DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS; IMPASSABLE, EVEN THOUGH FROM THE SHOULDER, LOOKS LIKE IT WILL GO. IT WILL NOT.

Gitrinec you are the man of the hour to solve a problem and quite sure no one else has because it is so remote and very difficult to get to. But even if getting to the spot wherein one comes across "the problem", it can't be puzzled out other than through what you are doing: big picture, lots of info, aerial recon.

It's very possible that someone has done this (summer) but would be something on the order of USGS, National Park Service or academia. It's the region of "The Skulls"; massive cliff collapse that happened sometime between 16 & 17 yrs ago.

I'll detail this a bit because a reliable source winter climber friend spotted a party in this area, late fall, and were in trouble.

To get to it from the west is a grueling journey by any means, starting from the Green River Lakes entrance. Mostly off-trail from upper Green River lakes (good, until it's not, and "not" comes quickly cuz have to get up to the glaciers just west of West Face of Gannett.

From Lakes, follow Green River up to two named ("creeks") on hiker's left. One of two hideous water falls (in summer) disguised as a trail Not.

It's also part of the way into the North Face route, ergo, such a grueling haul just to get to it. But from Gannett summit, or if navigating via topo, might look like a bail route but it isn't....too remote, tough traveling thru almost never-traveled in winter, seldom in summer.

If bailed off southern-most mini-buttress off Gannett and were not killed, is still a very long way out and probably could not get to the Lakes in one day.

Basically, the "goal"(?) to get to Glacier Pass is the horrific, steep scree slope far to climber's right if standing looking at the west face of Gannett. It is a named feature and to get an idea of it, search any of the major hiking/climbing online sites such as this one, Summit Post, etc. and read the one-liners: "horrendous", "never thought it would be that difficult", "have given up climbing, hiking, or even climbing up the one flight of stairs at my house". And these are summer comments.

Once standing in the cruelly named, oxymoronic "Glacier Pass", the view is unmatched: can look straight down on the Dinwoody, directly onto the area where I have marked "huge crevasses" & splashed some black slashes in huge bowl.

I mentioned this in an earlier post: you can stare directly into gnarly, snorting, black crevasses, waiting of their next meal(s), that would be plural. Avoid temptation to day-trip up this Dinwoody arm from standard Gannett approach & think "great skiing". Any topo, any source should dissuade you.

There used to be a manageable way to get to Gannett's south shoulder, to the spot I wanded on your map with the large yellow circle, dot in the middle. That's the junction of Gooseneck and formally, the connection to Glacier Pass starting at climber's left when actually standing in the pass, an obvious looking way, 4th class, working up and through typical broken shoulder-type terrain found throughout the range.

Imagine rather suddenly turning a corner, as if walking into a room only to find an avalanche of debris, dust and scouring of a (relatively) huge part of that area, geologically changing it, and putting what one just humped up into perspective, looking down the massive slide, I think, estimated, is a 2,300 ft. rock runout.

I had not been up there (Glacier Pass) in several years prior to about 1998 when I think (roughly) the slide took place. It didn't just happen, that's for sure but the wreckage is so massive that we could still smell and taste dust in the air, and in terms of geologic terms, if a few went by before it happened, it would be a femtosecond, one million of one billionth of a second. So it takes time to wash away the dust and "stuff".

What was meant to be a day flash from camp on Mammoth Glacier, Gannett Summit, and back immediately erased that thought, just as it did the mountain side. Being as we had come that far but with very thin gear, we roped up, one led about 20 meters into the razor blades, turned and looked down the chute, and I don't want to ever have that view again.

In all my years in the horror shows, that one moment of looking down that ranks right up near the top of the worst.

There are bolts on the ridge on the mini-peak above the pass (which cannot be seen but the ridge can be) because we placed them there years ago and it doesn't look like it got wiped (but follow the slide up and it goes right to the peak), so there is probably still a way up this route, and onto the shoulder, but it's technical and if nothing else, this is NOT a way to retreat or bail off Gannett, IMO.

This photo was taken in 2012, recon back up the erstwhile Pass to check out the damage. It's just really dumb to hump all the way from Green River lakes to the Pass and go up the technical part; it's possible that the pro was shaken loose, who knows?

There are technical ways of still getting on to the shoulder but after days of battle just to get to the base of the scree nightmare with a heavy pack...or no pack, why try to get on Gannett that way in the first place?

This is the business end of Gannett. There are more ways up Gannett than are in the guide books, but a handful are in the deep bowl of the face, all difficult, winter mixed lines that have been worked on for years, unrecorded and should remain so. Too hairy.

The cliff collapse, rather, the mountain side collapse, can be seen in the far left, bottom corner of the photo. The original is 3,264 x 2,448; max that out and you can see a fly on a rock. What is left of the area is in the region of a sliver of snow in what looks like a steep gash, because that's exactly what it is, and it runs right up to the peak of tiny feature. After your eye adjusts to subtle color changes in the mt. side, you get an idea of what let loose.

The pass itself cannot be seen; is out of sight and behind the rock feature blocking the view, far climber's left.....it is not the steep, thin-ish band of loose snow that can be seen, which on some Gannett views, looks like it could be climbed or bailed. Getting to the bottom of the snow field is yet another bad boy/girl. The snow chute is another; no ice (or too deep to stick w/tools), rather, a slidy, extremely steep rocket ride onto rudely hard rock.

Will never attempt ascending it again..if ice, would be great but it isn't ice; descent from Gannett ridge onto that white slider, certain death. That said, will not discount someone has climbed it...if so, helmet(s) off to them.

Geology is a verb.

Gitrinec wrote:These might help someone get an idea of the area a little more. Warbonnet let me know if any of these are useful for marking up, though you can see that drop by the Skulls pretty good from one of these. I can always just mark up your additions to these as well.

Gitrinec,

Great job, you really have it dialed....amazing....amazing.

You say you can see "the drop" near The Skulls; post and let me know where to find that in your worth-framing, work.

I've always been concerned about this junction spot on Gannett when taking people up this (standard) route because some things can go wrong here (weather), but first time I saw that slide some years back, after having been up and over Glacier Pass and messing around with other lines on Gannett, I recall thinking "ok, now it's getting serious".

Here are some more zoomed in images from the skulls area. Don't mind the NOAA stuff, lol. I found out how to add weather and snow forecast data as an overlay to Google Earth.

I think I need to stop looking at maps and pictures and shut my eyes, they are playing tricks on me, lol Here are some more images.

Gitrinec wrote:Here are some more zoomed in images from the skulls area. Don't mind the NOAA stuff, lol. I found out how to add weather and snow forecast data as an overlay to Google Earth.

No apologies, just glad you have tornado conditions in there. Cuz wind in the Winds is tornado-like anyway.

Gitrinec wrote:Depending on weather conditions, etc.. I'm going to try to take pictures mark some spots with the GPS when I'm there but only if that area allows it, lol I really don't think being there for longer than I have to is overly smart...

Agree with you...in, out...all under control but not panicky.

I see Glacier Pass marked, as well as Crevasses (Big Letters, is absolutely).
But I don’t see a rock runout. It would be near where ”G” is of "Glacier Pass".

Andrew Carson wrote:It's hard to get enough of the Winds at any time of year. I don't know anyone who's gone across to Gannett via Cold Springs in winter, so am not up to speed on Reservation regs for something like that. I always figured Mona has a long relaxed winter, looking up at the high country now and again but not too much else. Someone needs to do it on a pogo stick...finally attaining the elusive West Pole. Should be transgender if possible. As per Canadian standards.

Saying you do the skeleton beta route you describe, how long does it take you, or theoretically to do Trail Lake & Pinedale in winter, and what vehicles are you using (skis, snowshoes, both)?

Second question/rhetorical comment: you agree that this area is increasingly a crossroads for, in sum, all seasons climbing, hiking, mountaineering, etc?

I got run over by the holidaze, kinda lost track of the conversation but do try to get back at least daily to see what's been said. We once did the crossing in four days, including Gannett, but we had great snow conditions, the make or break of timing. Late Feb. for that one... another, early December, not much snow so alot of walking with skis on the back. But always skis. I can't imagine doing it in snowshoes....
We lack imagination as to creative route development and simply slogged back down to the Dunwoody and up Bonney Pass, then on to the roadhead. Nice to ski right across the lakes, like Seneca, instead of mincing along the shores on those horse trails.
And the glaciers... get on 'em while you can. After an absence of some years I found myself 'trapped' by vertical morainal debris, wondering how the hell I ever got onto and off of the glaciers but never noticed this pile... then, thinking about it, it came to me -- "Wow, these things are shrinking fast!" Twenty feet of ice gone? Or more.
Yeah, Gannett and the northern peaks are more popular than ever, I guess that makes it/them a crossroads. I haven't met anyone there in winter yet, but there's more of us every year. I'm probably done, though, unless i figure out how to employ beasts of burden other than myself. Done with the big packs. Very done.

Andrew Carson wrote:I got run over by the holidaze, kinda lost track of the conversation but do try to get back at least daily to see what's been said. We once did the crossing in four days, including Gannett, but we had great snow conditions, the make or break of timing. Late Feb. for that one... another, early December, not much snow so alot of walking with skis on the back. But always skis. I can't imagine doing it in snowshoes. I'm probably done, though, unless i figure out how to employ beasts of burden other than myself. Done with the big packs. Very done.

Andrew, Thanks for the reply. We were chatting about Mona (deservedly resting the winter out, glancing at "her view"). Being as she is the one who issues the permit for travel on the res, she would be the one to ask re: regulations for winter travel.

Until you mentioned your winter route, the only way to take the "shortcut" that I knew of is to pay the res fee (worth it), have Mona drive up the very long dirt road (even more worth it, and she chatting all the way (worth triple the fee).

In my opinion, the view from the trailhead after her drop off point on the res, having traveled the Winds 47 years (in a row, all seasons), but I know many people who have been doing that a lot longer, was stunning.

The entire Gannett area, Dinwoody, could see a long stretch of the Continental Divide, east side of all of Titcomb Basin, the straight shot to and through the meadows to Gannett....

Would not have felt "whole" unless I had seen and traveled that.

Impossible not to stop in tracks, sit and look for hours.

I highly suggest anyone in love with the Winds to take that route (summer, so you hang out) into Gannett; lifetime unforgettable...a stand-out among all the standout views in the Winds.

(To get there, you must get a permit to travel on the reservation and in fact, Mona, storied, also delivers you to the trailhead; long, long dirt road but a great ride. And you would't want to hike that, for sure. Contact info is on the Net somewhere, or see Kelsey's guidebooks).

Andrew Carson wrote:".......We lack imagination as to creative route development and simply slogged back down to the Dunwoody and up Bonney Pass, then on to the roadbed. Nice to ski right across the lakes, like Seneca, instead of mincing along the shores on those horse trails.

Don't know how long ago you were on the lower arm of Dinwoody from Bonney, but larger & more moulins have cropped up...not surprising.....and crevasse fields, albeit small, but didn't used to be back in the day (but ice elevation 30 yrs (?) ago was average 77 feet higher than now!)...have shrunk (but still something to keep in mind cuz once in awhile...a good crack shows up..... but now..... big rocks appearing as the mass shrinks even more...in that regard, lower tongue of Dinwoody, above and in second crevasse field is becoming more, not less dangerous.

Re: your mentioning of Seneca Lake.....I had spaced that out in this forum. You use a "polite" term in dealing with west side Seneca Lake..."mincing", hmmmm, I think it really sucks and could be, unless a bit careful & esp. in white-out, a really hateful place to be. If pinned there in a winter storm, Gannett climb probably over, back to Pinedale. A guess....

New winter climbers to Gannett need heed Andrew's mentioning of west side of Seneca Lake...check out summer topo...ugh.

Andrew Carson wrote:And the glaciers... get on 'em while you can. After an absence of some years I found myself 'trapped' by vertical morainal debris, wondering how the hell I ever got onto and off of the glaciers but never noticed this pile... then, thinking about it, it came to me -- "Wow, these things are shrinking fast!" Twenty feet of ice gone? Or more.

You and I ...and many other Winds addicts....have had the identical experience re: the glaciers. Year after year, lifelong climbing buddies (odd mix of professions, science, insurance, submarine sonar researcher).

Once in the Winds, hike, climb, year after year, paying attention to not paying attention, traveling the glaciers. Slowly, slowly...one of us would say "Geez....wasn't that (whatever)....covered with ice last we were here?", or "I don't recall moulins being in this area. Anyone?"

Group: "hmm..now that you mention it."

And so it went yr after yr, and we returned yr after yr, same thing only got worse in front of our very eyes.

Mostly geo-heads & scientists, we were literally spacing out what we read in the science room...."climate change"..."glaciers melting". Duh.

Wikipedia

"Dinwoody Glacier is located in Shoshone National Forest, in the U.S. state of Wyoming on the east side of the Continental Divide in the Wind River Range.

Completely within the Fitzpatrick Wilderness, Dinwoody Glacier is one of the largest glaciers in the American Rocky Mountains, and as of 1989 was ranked fourth in area.

In a 1989 study which examined repeat photography and stream flow analysis, Dinwoody Glacier was determined to have retreated rapidly between 1958 and 1983, though most of the reduction has been in the thickness of the glacier rather than its surface area.

In the same 25-year period, the glacier lost an average of 23.4 m (77 ft) in thickness. Radar mapping of 72 locations on the glacier resulted in an average thickness of 54 m (177 ft) and a maximum measured depth of 111 m (364 ft).

The 1989 study was commenced to examine the impact on water supplies to streams and rivers from glacier retreat of both Dinwoody and Gannett Glaciers."

University of Oregon: "The light snow above the firn line fell during the previous winter or spring and has survived the summer's warmth--it's definitely in the zone of accumulation.

Below the line, however, older gray-colored ice is exposed because the previous winter's snow has melted off."

Andrew Carson wrote: And the glaciers... get on 'em while you can. After an absence of some years I found myself 'trapped' by vertical morainal debris, wondering how the hell I ever got onto and off of the glaciers but never noticed this pile... then, thinking about it, it came to me -- "Wow, these things are shrinking fast!" Twenty feet of ice gone? Or more.

"More". Correct. As per post above. Hard to wrap the head around this, despite what we all see elsewhere in the news, internet, our professions, etc. No doubt climate change everywhere...but the Winds?

FIRN

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firn

"Firn (/fɪrn/; from Swiss German firn "last year's", cognate with before) is partially compacted névé, a type of snow that has been left over from past seasons and has been recrystallized into a substance denser than névé. It is ice that is at an intermediate stage between snow and glacial ice.

Firn has the appearance of wet sugar, but has a hardness that makes it extremely resistant to shovelling. Its density generally ranges from 550 kg/m³-830 kg/m³, and it can often be found underneath the snow that accumulates at the head of a glacier.

Snowflakes are compressed under the weight of the overlying snowpack. Individual crystals near the melting point are semiliquid and slick, allowing them to glide along other crystal planes and to fill in the spaces between them, increasing the ice's density. Where the crystals touch they bond together, squeezing the air between them to the surface or into bubbles.

In the summer months, the crystal metamorphosis can occur more rapidly because of water percolation between the crystals. By summer's end, the result is firn.

The minimum altitude that firn accumulates on a glacier is called the firn limit, firn line or snowlike."

Importantly, know that firn is extremely hard to shovel through, i.e., don't plan on any snow cave here.

Gitrinec,

Spot on. That view of Glacier Pass is more representative of how long and steep it is. Ugly. Also shows that part of the lower shoulder of Gannett that collapsed.

If anyone else has intel as per discussion above, post, esp. if you have climbed/navigated this area (on east side of Gintrinec's GE marked up image since 16, 17 years ago, the time I estimated that the big slide let loose.

Used to be that could get up, or off, Gannett that way, 5th class (but yin to the yang, then ended up on Mammoth Glacier and from there from big frying pan into bigger frying pan; remote, way off trail (great, unless need to get out....in summer, one long tiring day(s) to Green River Lakes.

The far left slash (steeper in reality than this GE view), according to one of Kelsey's guidebooks, can't remember which, says that a 17 yr old soloed that (and it's not just a scree slope; bouldery, exposed.)

Some guy named Chouinard, never heard of him.

Warbonnet, thanks for all the wisdom. Being new to the winds I spent most of the summer in the titcomb and dinwoody glacier area. It was pretty incredible seeing a literal creek of water flushing it's way down the middle of the glacier and wondering just how fast the glacier is receding. Two summer trips up Gannett and two failed attempts has given me an idea of how to traverse the glacier but I feel that I'm in for a surprise once I see it in the winter.

And the moulin.. That thing is very wild. I've only seen the one closest to Bonney pass (at the base) and peered into the depths. Scary stuff especially with all the new snow on top.

Reading your responses (and talking to climbers who make their way to this area each winter) has given me a good idea of what to expect and how to plan. We have a mid February trip planned. Even being there in October there was already 2 feet of snow on the glacier and on top of Bonney pass. I was tent bound for 4 days in a snow storm and was surprised to see just how wild titcomb basin gets when storms pass through.

I've made a couple of trips as far as Hobbs lake so far this winter and plan on making another tomorrow to get a better idea of snowpack. Reports from friends tell me that the snow is an unconsolidated mess and has not had much of a chance to settle.

My limited experience shows that the getting to Seneca lake is most easily done from Hobbs, via the creek connecting the two (in winter when the lakes are frozen). I've only followed the "trail" up to Hobbs so far. Is this the way you would take?

As always, please keep the responses coming. It's interesting to hear others anecdotes of traveling this area.

Cheers

Warbonnet, ya all of those pictures have helped, I think I'll probably end up just doing the start from Elkhart, I'm still working out the Skis and have a few items left to get as in the 4 season tent but I'm enjoying the planning phase, I hope everyone is having a great Christmas, Ya I'm not very PC, lol

DavisMeschke wrote:Warbonnet, thanks for all the wisdom. Being new to the winds I spent most of the summer in the titcomb and dinwoody glacier area. It was pretty incredible seeing a literal creek of .

Yo Davis: Good to see you back in the Forum. You say: "....water flushing it's way down the middle of the glacier and wondering just how fast the glacier is receding".

Do you recall where the "creek" started? Regardless of where, it was headed for, or destined to be a moulin.

The Dinwoody seems to be moving faster than other arms of the Dinwoody, based on what I know about it and from glaciologists and geo-head friends.

I've been traveling on this for many decades; back in the day, the upper (and esp. the lower) crevasse field were definitely a place you needed to take great care (as opposed to now, although there are a few places where it's good to be paying attention).

In 1968, the crevasse fields were obvious, moulins less so. The big picture of this area (like many flat-ish glaciers, or portions of them) is that it is sliding (called "creep") on a lubricant of water, however, all glaciers do this. I can't recall the estimated creep rate but I believe as of five (?) years ago, it was one of fastest moving arms of the Dinwoody. I was comparing recent data from another study I'm not involved with and the creep rate was astounding....I'll look it up and post.

This may seem counterintuitive; it means it's pretty well greased up (at the same time receding at it's own snout end. As per a previous post (taken from Wiki but is referencing numerous studies), the Dinwoody has lost a phenomenal amount of mass, i.e, it used to be, on average (given the time period quoted in the article) 77 feet higher. From 1968, it has lost approximately 40' in height (just down from Bonney, near the bend towards the moat (not at the moat but before it....near the rock outcropping to climber's left as one descends the glacier).

This is an astounding amount of ice, and sadly, I've seen it go, however, as per Andrew's post above, he has seen it too but unlike me, he seems to have taken a "break" which I interpreted as being away from the Winds for awhile.

So, this arm is sinking and losing mass & height --- all related. If you think about that, it makes sense because the crevasses look like they are "melting" into the ice , hence not as deep, wide and obvious. It's like placing a stick of butter on its end into a frying pan and slow warming it up. At some point, the butter will have spread out but a part of the original stick will be obvious until.....it's not.

That isn't the best analogy but it will have to do. So, if you have large rocks beneath the ice (anywhere), as the thickness of the ice melts, they will become more apparent. In this case, it's a bit dicey to get near them (you've probably figured that out; I did the hard way years ago). The snow/ice is severely undercut and dangerous.

Additionally, this is often "moulin" birth country; not unusual to see moulins around large rocks.
When moulins are seen in close proximity ("close" being relative) to each other, that is not safe terrain to be in for obvious reasons. At some point in the ice, or even at the surface, they are probably connected. While it may seem odd that moulins may move around from season to season but they do; it depends on what is known as a "preferential flow path", that being the cliche that water does what it wants to, i.e.. take the path of least resistance, and even if it is not the past of least resistance then, the water usually wins (moves around the rock, or if in a bad mood, will erode the substrate, depending on what it is made of).

Over the years, I've seen the crevasses recede in depth and spacing, as well as width. Given the melting butter analogy, the melting water needs to go somewhere and while it has likely already reached the bedrock, the moulins will move as well, but less predictable.

I've seen them move from one far side to the other, from summer to winter, at least 500 yards apart. That is quite the swing in preferential flow path for a relatively small glacier; nonetheless, they do so. That's why it's important to develop that "sixth sense" re: where they might be.

As you travel more and more there....and elsewhere.....you'll get that sixth sense and no doubt, sooner than later, if traveling with a group, or esp. leading others, you will naturally get a bit weirded out. Where you will be standing one year & remembering such-and-such danger feature used to be there, you'll serve yourself best....and the others....to stop and think about it, trying to divine (read) the territory because moulins are something that be stepped into rather easily, even if covered by X inches or even feet.

I've always called them "washingmachiners" because that's exactly what they are.

Go to You Tube and search "moulins glaciers images" (images being the operative word). Plenty, plenty, inc. one in motion on the Dinwoody. (I think I know the exact spot that is in simply because I recognize the terrain in back of it; whoever posted it didn't say).

There are more moulins now climber's right when descending the glacier than even 10 years ago. I saw one two years ago about half way down the glacier, probably 900 ft +/- from the upper crevasse field. This was and is not good news. That means meltwater is coming from somewhere above and is taking a preferential flow path. It is most likely the result of the ice losing its thickness as well as more meltwater accumulates, however, if there is one that far up, they are guaranteed to get worse, so as you become the next "uber expert" generation, you will remember "back in the day" when there were only a few, not there will be many.

Further down the glacier where it is quite flat is the danger zone; tread lightly here, esp. with snow cover. Three feet of snow can cover them such that you won't find them until too late. I don't get paranoid about them nor do I hike the Continental Divide to avoid them. I know where the bad ones are (at least in the seconds it takes to type this) and defiantly stay away from them. You can hear the bad ones even in winter.

Having said that, every time I've shown up during the last 10 years, they are getting worse, and found further up the glacier, but a bit worse, on the margins. This means there is a source of water above them that is feeding the machine and it doesn't even need to be visible glacier; water takes/makes it own preferential flow path, i.e., the source could easily be far upgradienet and you just don't know it.

I've found it's worth paying attention to the surrounding mountains all seasons, AND to look at photographs when you have the opportunity.

By searching Dinwoody Glaciers images (leave out moulins for this exercise), you will come across older black and white photos that are a good reality check. I've even been surprise at some, however, a few give a good idea of what lays ahead. (The biggest problem is descending climber's right when far down the glacier, which I would avoid anyway. There are still crevasses there that you do not want to be introduced to.

I never rope up on the glacier unless there is a storm brewing and if traveling with my seasoned buddies, even in rain or light snow, we do not rope up. In winter, it's a totally different matter, depending where one is. We know it well enough to avoid the obvious danger areas and move very slowly where there might be spots we know are dicey. Pays to stop once in awhile and listen.

In a whiteout, as anywhere, that is the time to be ultra cautious because parts of Dinwoody are just waiting for their next meal, the most likely.....and unlikely spot is the moat. I'll post a winter pic of that area; even though in dead winter, it's only 100 ft off the vertical snow cliff, it's 99 feet more than you want to drop, esp. with crampons.

This area needs to be wanded but not just scattered wands, rather, by a technique that presumably the forum will be talking about. I've thought about starting a new forum just for that reason, because the subject could get off track from this route, except, Gannett winter (this route) is a good place to start because the moat is a perfect example on how to wand a known, potential hazard.

I may start the food fight anyway because many people think they only need to wand crevasses but that is not so; the moat in winter is a serious snow cliff....can be as bad as a crevasse in terms of potential body damage.

Bottom line on the Dinwoddy in this area (and others), the glacier is becoming more dangerous, not less, especially as "thingy's" are going to crop up where they were not before. (Emerging rocks should not be dismissed.....you will live to see them start popping up....good size ones.....have already seen them)

DavisMeschke wrote: Two summer trips up Gannett and two failed attempts has given me an idea of how to traverse the glacier but I feel that I'm in for a surprise once I see it in the winter. Cheers

Well, you are in the league as most others who are getting experience....or already have it. A 50-50 chance on a mountain like Gannett is usually weather-dependent and while the weather is not dependable.....well, there you go.

I caution people to be careful of the Dinwoody because the storms (any season) hit Gannett, boil around and down the Dinwoody (to use a reductionist example). One hour fine, the next in a white-out.

If people are returning later in the day, which most do -- about post-moat time is when they really start feeling it. The seeming unending elevation gain and loss takes a toll, esp. if battling weather all the way up.

AND you are absolutely correct: there is a surprise....no idea what....that is waiting just for you....(as they have for all of us).