Re: Colorado 2010
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:01 pm
All the pictures for this week were taken in Ouray, Colorado.
I asked my son about this. Here is what he said:Highlander wrote:I am curious as to where you were headed driving along the Delores River? Eventually, those roads head toward Utah and Moab. You've said that you don't really follow the routes but it would be difficult getting to the Lower Delores River (those pictures are definitely not from the Upper Delores area) from Ouray without going through Telluride and over Lizard Head Pass or alternately along San Miguel Canyon downstream from Telluride - either way, you've left the San Juan Mountains far behind as evidenced by your photos. You mentioned you went through Silverton - was that before or after the Delores River drive. I've spent a lot of time in this area, just trying to picture your route in my head.
Many years before this trip, we tried to stay in Moab, but there were no vacancies. Somehow, we ran into the mayor of Moab, and he invited us to stay at his house! And he served breakfast!Highlander wrote:Sounds like our trip last summer, only we did things in a somewhat different order.
I've had the Moab all-hotels-sold-out experience before - twice. Ended up in Green River once and on another camped out high in the La Sals on a very cold night in April.
Here's what my son said about that.Not many people would purposely visit Unaweep Canyon! that's pretty cool you went there.
Thank you, Highlander. I've got a bunch of pictures of that arch. As I recall, it nearly killed me to walk to the thing.Highlander wrote:Nice pictures of Arches. Great place but oh so crowded any more. We went to Delicate Arch at sunrise - not a great time for lighting but were practically alone for a good hour there. On the way down a couple of hours later, I suspect we saw close to 500 people heading up.
Ha. Sorry. Didn't want to appear nitpicky. The "dunes" are actually outcrops of the Mancos Shale. It's a Cretaceous formation deposited in quasi deep water out in front of a large Cretaceous delta. Many of the large valleys in that area are there because the Mancos easily erodes leaving extensive topographical lows (e.g., I-70 south of the book cliffs). The weathering profile can make it look dune-like in appearance but genetically they are not related.Roanoker wrote:Thank you, Highlander. I've got a bunch of pictures of that arch. As I recall, it nearly killed me to walk to the thing.Highlander wrote:Nice pictures of Arches. Great place but oh so crowded any more. We went to Delicate Arch at sunrise - not a great time for lighting but were practically alone for a good hour there. On the way down a couple of hours later, I suspect we saw close to 500 people heading up.
Incidentally, you had commented that the "sand dunes" I had mentioned were not really sand dunes, and you explained what they were. I chided my son in that he had not corrected my erroneous assessment. When I came back here to see what you had said so I could correct my comments made earlier in an email, that paragraph was gone! And I don't have a copy. My son is not available right now, so I tried to find on the Internet what that "sand dune" terrain really was, but I couldn't find it. Maybe I did find it, but I'm too geology challenged to realize it. I found something about "ancient sand dunes," but I'm not sure those words applied to what we're talking about.
Anyway, could you repost what you said. I would like to know, and thanks!
Thank you, Highlander. Always please identify what you see in my pictures. We can count on you for the truth. I can only speak to what I think I see, such as the man on the moon or marbles on Mars. We'll see more of such nonsense as we continue with this week's offerings.Highlander wrote:Ha. Sorry. Didn't want to appear nitpicky. The "dunes" are actually outcrops of the Mancos Shale. It's a Cretaceous formation deposited in quasi deep water out in front of a large Cretaceous delta. Many of the large valleys in that area are there because the Mancos easily erodes leaving extensive topographical lows (e.g., I-70 south of the book cliffs). The weathering profile can make it look dune-like in appearance but genetically they are not related.Roanoker wrote:Thank you, Highlander. I've got a bunch of pictures of that arch. As I recall, it nearly killed me to walk to the thing.Highlander wrote:Nice pictures of Arches. Great place but oh so crowded any more. We went to Delicate Arch at sunrise - not a great time for lighting but were practically alone for a good hour there. On the way down a couple of hours later, I suspect we saw close to 500 people heading up.
Incidentally, you had commented that the "sand dunes" I had mentioned were not really sand dunes, and you explained what they were. I chided my son in that he had not corrected my erroneous assessment. When I came back here to see what you had said so I could correct my comments made earlier in an email, that paragraph was gone! And I don't have a copy. My son is not available right now, so I tried to find on the Internet what that "sand dune" terrain really was, but I couldn't find it. Maybe I did find it, but I'm too geology challenged to realize it. I found something about "ancient sand dunes," but I'm not sure those words applied to what we're talking about.
Anyway, could you repost what you said. I would like to know, and thanks!
Thank you, Highlander. Always please identify what you see in my pictures. We can count on you for the truth. I can only speak to what I think I see, such as the man on the moon or marbles on Mars. We'll see more of such nonsense as we continue with this week's offerings.Highlander wrote:Ha. Sorry. Didn't want to appear nitpicky. The "dunes" are actually outcrops of the Mancos Shale. It's a Cretaceous formation deposited in quasi deep water out in front of a large Cretaceous delta. Many of the large valleys in that area are there because the Mancos easily erodes leaving extensive topographical lows (e.g., I-70 south of the book cliffs). The weathering profile can make it look dune-like in appearance but genetically they are not related.Roanoker wrote:Thank you, Highlander. I've got a bunch of pictures of that arch. As I recall, it nearly killed me to walk to the thing.Highlander wrote:Nice pictures of Arches. Great place but oh so crowded any more. We went to Delicate Arch at sunrise - not a great time for lighting but were practically alone for a good hour there. On the way down a couple of hours later, I suspect we saw close to 500 people heading up.
Incidentally, you had commented that the "sand dunes" I had mentioned were not really sand dunes, and you explained what they were. I chided my son in that he had not corrected my erroneous assessment. When I came back here to see what you had said so I could correct my comments made earlier in an email, that paragraph was gone! And I don't have a copy. My son is not available right now, so I tried to find on the Internet what that "sand dune" terrain really was, but I couldn't find it. Maybe I did find it, but I'm too geology challenged to realize it. I found something about "ancient sand dunes," but I'm not sure those words applied to what we're talking about.
Anyway, could you repost what you said. I would like to know, and thanks!