This is an archive of past discussions about Cascade Range. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.145.40.43 (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2003 (UTC)
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, evenSkookum108:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
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 . . . ) Skookum102:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
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? -- Spireguy04:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Location Image for Canadian Cascades
Location map of "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.Skookum116:59, 24 July 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 CascadesSkookum106:39, 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. -- Spireguy19:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
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? -- Spireguy04:20, 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). Skookum105:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
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.Skookum121:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
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! NorCalHistory01:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
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. -- Spireguy20:54, 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).Skookum121:25, 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. NorCalHistory06:27, 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.)
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! NorCalHistory07:00, 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. -- Spireguy15:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Rewrote intro paragraph
I rewrote the first paragraph to be more readable and also more balanced between the High Cascade volcanoes and the rest of the range. Most of the range is not volcanic, and the volcanoes are not the only famous/notable parts. I think it's better now. Comments? -- Spireguy20:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Remembering what's in the North Cascades article, there's a small addition maybe:
The small part of the range in British Columbia is called the Canadian Cascades or Cascade Mountains, the southern part of which is effectively an extension of the geography of the North Cascades. The term Cascade Mountains is also sometimes used by Washington residents to refer to the Washington section of the Cascades.
Throughout many range/mountains comparisons, the last comment holds true; Coast Mountains/Range, Selkirk Mountains/Range and vice-versa in some other cases (saw one the other day but can't remember where). Official names should be the standard, of course, with the others all redirects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
I think things like "the southern part of which is effectively an extension of the geography of the North Cascades" would be more appropriate in the Geography section, perhaps in the second paragraph about the North Cascades. It's a bit too specific for the intro paragraph, I think. I'll try to put it in. -- Spireguy22:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Cascade Volcanoes versus Cascade Range
The recent edits by Skookum1 make clear that we need to establish the relationship between the Cascade Volcanoes (i.e. the Cascade Volcanic Belt) and the Cascade Range. Should the volcanoes north of the Fraser be included in this article at all? They have recently been added, and I tried to clarify in the list that they are not considered part of the Cascade Range proper; Skookum1 has changed the wording to make that statement stronger. In fact it is now so strong that it looks strange to even include them at all. My vote would be to remove them entirely, but include a note fairly near the start of this article about the existence of the Cascade Volcanic Belt and the possible confusion. Comments? -- Spireguy17:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I've certainly suggested - stated - that they shouldn't be, and of course you'll have seen the note about this on your own talkpage. It's also become "stronger" because of the inclusion of a lot of summits that most Americans are completely unaware of, despite the (for some reason) fame of Mount Garibaldi; my view is that the listing of peaks shouldn't focus on volcanoes and should also name the non-volcanic peaks - the line about the "High Cascades standing twice the height of mountains around them" or however it's put doesn't apply in the case of Baker (well, since 8.5/10 isn't 1/2, right?) and the major/well-known North Cascades peaks should be given coverage, e.g. Cheam, Slesse, Hozameen/Hozomeen. All that's needed somewhere, even in an italicized dab line at the top of the article, or repeated in its intro for emphasis, is that there is a distinction betwee the Cascade Volcanoes and the Cascade Range, which the latter being only a PART of the former, and the two terms should not be confused as the former extends another few hundred miles north than the northern limit of the Cascade Range. I'll also find some refs on archaic usages of "Cascades" and even "Cascade Mountains" (but not "Cascade Range") in 19th Century BC legalisms, and even as I noted on your page in the Kootenays (which are the Selkirks and Purcells...), but these are not "references" as to modern usage; there was a phrase I took out a few edits ago in the intro about the range "sometimes is defined as..." including Garibaldi etc that is uncitable, unless we're going to allow erroneous references. Encyclopedias are supposed to serve up the truth; not accounts based on inclusion of errors and misconceptions.Skookum120:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Summary of above: my intent today sometime is to move the non-Cascade Range peaks to their proper page, and terse-down the Cascade Volcanoes vs. Cascade Range; I made it "strong" because it has to be if it's on this page; especially because the original versions of this page blithely assumed Garibaldi's inclusion as part of the range, which it's definitely not. BlackTusk's enthusiasm for volcano entries is a a great thing, and I'm glad the Cascade Volcanoes has its own article now, as it should have a long time ago; but the confusion between the two terms has to be stopped, or it will be perpetuated.Skookum120:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
This entire page is horrible
Who wrote this awful page? Do they live in the area? 95% of the Cascades are non-volcanic, yet the page is entirely about a few volcanoes and not the thousands and thousands of other peaks in the range. The Cascade Volcanoes even have their own seperate page here at Wikipedia.
This page needs to be completely deleted and rewritten by someone who understands the Cascade Range and its significance in the lower 48 states. I am not qualified to completely rewrite it but I can help.
To answer your question about who wrote this page, see the page history. In regards to it being "awful" and "horrible", that may be your opinion, but if you read about civility, you will see that comments like that contribute to an uncivil environment. Please keep your comments constructive--what other specific suggestions do you have for improving the article? Katr6719:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Here is a comparison to qualify how inadequate this page is. If I wrote a page on the United States, but the only thing I talked about on the page was New Orleans. That would be comparable to this article about the Cascade Range, but completely excluding 95% of the peaks. The Cascades are almost completely NONVOLCANIC.
The Cascade Volcanoes page got made expressly because the volcanic focus of this page was "transcending" the geographic designatino; the Volcanic Belt and the Range overlap, but they do not have the same boundary nor do they mean the same thing. I just tried placing a merge tag on the volcano-specific listing/section overleaf but couldn't figure it out. I agree with you - and that MORE pictures of volcanoes keep on being added, as if that was all the range is about, flies in the face of my previous comments/suggestions farther above on this talk page. There should be pictures of Shuksan and Slesse and Hozomeen, and some terrain shots; not this fascination with big conical mountains that occasionally blow up. But apparently for some people who live in the shadow of these mountains, and apparently who've never been farther north than Everett, the Cascades means these big stand-alone cones; so how to explain the Anderson River group:
or the incredibly tangled thickets of the area from Glacier Peak to the Fraser? The cold jungles of the Sumallo and upper Skagit and Silverhope? The broken dryland plateaus of Cathedral Park and whatever's south of it on the inland side of the range? I tried amending the fudging overleaf, with its generalizations about Rainier-Adams type terrain, by making ref to the North/Cdn Cascades, but it's still an uphill battle when people equate the term "High Cascades" with the whole range; and then proceeed to define it in a way that describes only Shasta-Rainier and basically leaves out the northern third or so of the range. Also, that big Oregon template is most unsuitable here; there aren't WA or BC templates, I think there's a CA template; I could deal with it easier if it were less vision-dominant and were "Geographic Regions of Oregon", but it's a general Oregon template; and even though Oregonians think they do, it seems, they don't own the Cascades, nor are the Cascades defined by how they are in Oregon. Anyway, I agree with you; I think the volcanoes bits and most of the volcanic-cone photos should be merged/moved to Cascade Volcanoes and more effort here should be put towards addressing the whole range, not just its most famous features which, as noted, have a separate article; and can't somebody find pictures of Shuksan, Pilchuk, Hozomeen, Slesse?Skookum119:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting generalizations you're making about Oregonians, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the question of what this article needs for improvement. If the Oregon template offends you, feel free to remove it. The template was added to most of the articles that it links to, but you're right it doesn't make sense to have it on a cross-regional article. Looks like it's been there since June of 2006 and was added by a well meaning 16-year-old Oregonian. Katr6719:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, I make generalizations about British Columbians, Vancouverites and Canadians too; not singling out Oregon over anyone else. In this case these were more observations re the Oregon perspective I found myself working to amend in order to represent the North and Canadian Cascades, descriptions of which were absent entirely from the article a while ago. BCers see their own scope on regional history myopically, too; and Vancouverites even more; you can't help who you are, or where you see things from; it's natural; and in some cases based on different interpretations or misunderstandings, like the original confusion here (and still sort of here) between the Cascade Volcanoes and Cascade Range, as if they were the same thing - which in some American/US minds, they are). With the Cascades, up here it denotes an extremely precipitous, rugged, rain-soaked or alpine snarl of peaks, not a series of stand-alone volcanoes, as well as the last hill-plateau verges of the range before the official boundary of the Interior Plateau (which is rather arbitrary given that Lytton Mountain and others are clearly more plateau-like than the adjacent Clear Range, which is part of the Plateau; likewise the Okanagan Range and the mountains between the Similkameen and Okanagan Valleys, which are also part of the Plateau but most resemble the Okanagan Highland on the other flank of the Okanagan; which is officially, sort of, part of the Monashees. All this by way of saying geographic designations are all fairly arbitrary, though sometimes official or semi-official; and geological areas don't coincide with them often enough; as with the spill-over of the Cascade Volcanoes system far to the north of the official end of the Cascade Range (at the Fraser River).Skookum101:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll second the original reply about civility, and the lack thereof in the original comment in this section. Let's please remember to assume good faith. I do partly agree with the substance of the complaint, however, in that this page does focus mostly on the volcanic peaks, and it needs to have more about the nonvolcanic peaks. In fact I created the North Cascades page partly to address that very issue in that particular region. Nonetheless, there is reason for giving the volcanoes more space than their pure geographic extent would justify, since they are highly notable peaks. (To wit: they are dramatic, special, known worldwide; some are Nat. Parks, some are active; all are popular climbs;...) To use an analogy similar to the "New Orleans" analogy: in an article about the U.S., one would expect a lot more ink about, say, NYC than about North Dakota, despite the latter's greater size. I would favor including more in the article about the nonvolcanic peaks, but not a dominating amount. And about the Oregon template, yes, it's a bit much, although I don't think it constitutes any bad faith on the part of any Oregonian. -- Spireguy02:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a note that someone not living in the area does not mean they don't know anything about it. I don't live in western North America and I have covered much of geology, including GA's. So get real. Black Tusk (talk) 04:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
List of Cascade Arc volcanoes
I'm removing the Canadian volcanoes from the list under this topic, and replacing it with a link to Cascade Volcanoes; but I've left the volcano peaks that are in the Cascade Range. If I've read the talk too quickly and have failed to see a reason for not doing this, I'm sorry about that. Note that there is an article called List of Cascade volcanoes, which at the moment I've transcluded into the main article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **00:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Crossings
There should probably be a list of major crossings, including at least paved roads and railroads. The following is a partial list from south to north:
British Columbia is not a state; I don't know how to adjust the code so it displays States/Provinces for that section, mbye there's one on Selkirk Mountains that's correct, if so I'l transfer the format here; or would someone please fix it if I can't work it out.Skookum1 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Confessio - Cascade Range/Mountains historical usages in Canada etc.
OK, I love it when I have to eat crow pie, but I'm butchering the crows myself and am thankfully a good cook - all the better when I have to eat my own swords.....this has been bugging me for a while, so I'll take a few minutes as Hurricane Kyle rages outside and raise this ast last: I made great hay of the term Cascades not applying north of the Fraser, and while this is no longer officially true there's enough of a history to the former usage to warrant an actual section; it's also important to note that the official name as applied in Canada is Cascade Mountains, not Cascade Range. The BCGNIS for "Cascade Range" is an interesting read and dates teh first appearance in print to David Douglas., and gives othre names and terms used over time and early on. Of main interest is Joseph Trutch's 1871 map ref. swhich shows (not in BCGNIS,sadly) "Cascade Range" for the Coast Mountains (he was then, or was about to be, Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia in that newly-minted province, and had been Commissioner of Public Works and various other offices during the colonial years -including I think colonial lieutenant-governor (a very different job, deputy to the Governor; now infamous for his harsh anti-Indian attitudes and policies, including the first round of Indian Reserve reductions). His map is also mentioned in the BCGNIS for "Coast Mountains", but it wasn't an official map and despite his high status it carried no official weight. Still, however, the term is used in legal language to this day, apparently dating to the first Lands Act in 1859 (colonial era); youl'l still see on various NTS topos and BCGovt publications "Line of the Cascades as defined for administrative purposes" - one instance I'm familiar with is in teh Cayoosh Pass/Joffre Lakes Provincial Park area of the Lillooet Ranges; everything from electoral district definitions to forest districts and other boundaries may use the term as a result of its use in legislation. I also know of one or two BC Archives photos with it in captions. So mea culpa for my hard-line stand of long ago, i've realized the relevant info and also more about NPOV in the time since; I'm hoping someone else might condense all this for the name section, plus any useful info from the two BCGNIS items provided....Il'l be back with other bits, including that BC ARchives photo-link, next time around.....Skookum1 (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Well! Perhaps we ought to change or remove those claims about there being only three rivers to cross the Cascades (Columbia River, Klamath River, and Pit River, I think each page mentions that factoid). I just checked the US GNIS page, U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Cascade Range, and it says the mountains extend north to Meager Mountain, BC. Definitions like that in the GNIS database are not always dependable though, fwiw. And hey, I only just heard that you are about to receive a hurricane. Must be relatively uncommon for a true hurricane to make landfall in Canada! Pfly (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, the distinction is that the Canadian definition today does not extend north of the Fraser; the GNIS may but it has various different usages, including the Selkirks and Purcells as part of the Rockies when they aren't in Canada (there is a current rebranding effort for "Kootenay Rockies" as I've mentioned before, but it's very nouveau). The GNIS entry apparently makes the mistake of confusing the Cascade Volcanoes with the Cascade Range; and in a sense the Cascade Range definition inherently crosses those rivers; the rivers do not pierce the range, the range was described by lumping together different ranges on either side of hte respective rivers. So that's still a valid statement, although the language of it I'm not particular about. Similarly on the Fraser River article as you know I amended thebit that said that river passes through the Coast Mountains; no, it passes between the Coast Mountains and the Cascade Mountains (not the Cascade Range....btw tehre's a subtle distinction about "Canadian Cascades" - it's usually only used from Manning Park west, not for those parts of the range northwards to Lytton, I guess to distinguish the alpine peaks south and west of Hope from their south-of-49 sisters; north of that there's no need for the distinction/contrast with the "American Cascades" i.e. North Cascades). The points I'm raising here ahve to do with the historical and remaining legal (and legal only, i.e. in legal language, not in public usage) of the term as it's used, or was used, for the Coast Mountains, as they are now defined. it's by no means a current usage or that the sarticle should reflect the mdoern context of; I raise it only so it can e referred to historically, a a side-issue re tha name; the David Douglas provenance is interesting, maybe it was already in the article?Skookum1 (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
[undent]for the benefit of the discussion and those who might not click through to read this off BCGNIS:
Adopted in Nomenclature of the Mountains of Western Canada, published 2 April 1918 by the Geographic Board of Canada; confirmed in 1936 on Geological Survey sheet 421A, Hope, as identified in BC Mines Bulletin 48: Landforms of British Columbia.
Source: BC place name cards, or correspondence to/from BC's Chief Geographer or BC Geographical Names Office
Includes Skagit Range, Hozameen Range & Okanagan Range. Extent in British Columbia: bounded on the west by Fraser River, on the north by Thompson River, on the east by Nicomen River - Lawless Creek - Tulameen River - Copper Creek - Similkamen River. This is known as "Cascade Range" in Washington and Oregon States.
Source: BC place name cards, or correspondence to/from BC's Chief Geographer or BC Geographical Names Office
The following is an excerpt with citations from Oregon Historical Quarterly, Vol XXVI, December 1925, p.375-380: "The Cascade Range is the great mountain backbone of Oregon and Washington...Probably the first attempt at a name for the range was by the Spaniard, Manuel Quimper, 1790, who roughly mapped it as "Sierra Madras de S. Antonio". In 1792, George Vancouver gave names to a number of the most prominent peaks, but referred to the range as "snowy range", "ridge of snowy mountains" or "range of rugged mountains". Lewis and Clark, 1805-06, mention the named peaks and frequently refef in general terms to the range of mountains. Lewis wrote: "The range of western mountains are covered with snow..." (Journals... Vol IV, pp.305, 306 & 313). "Western Mountains" is the nearest to a name for the range adopted by Lewis and Clark. John Work of the Hudson's Bay Company, wrote in December 1824: "A ridge of high mountains covered with snow..." (Washington Historical Quarterly, Vol III, pp 213, 215). David Douglas, the botanist, in writing his journal, had great need of a name for these mountains and he seems to have been the first one to use the name "Cascade". He refers again and again to the "Cascade Mountains" or "Cascade Range of Mountains" (Journals... 1823-1827, pp 221-222, 252, 257, 342). Douglas does not claim to have originated the name for the range, and earlier use of it may yet come to light. William A. Slacum's report, 1836-37, says the mountains were sometimes called "Klannet range, from the Indians of that name" (Oregon Historical Society Quarterly, Vol XIII, p.200). Hall J. Kelley of Boston, an early enthusiast on the Oregon Question...campaigned unsuccessfully 1834-39 to change the names of the great peaks by calling them after former presidents of the United States and to christen the range "Presidents Range". The Wilkes Expedition, 1841, charted the mountains as Cascade Range."
Source: Provincial Archives of BC "Place Names File" compiled 1945-1950 by A.G. Harvey from various sources, with subsequent additions
Th mention of David Douglas got me pondering that perhaps that had become the name of the area on the Columbia where the mountains flanked the river as they do; I know that's self-obvious but that woudl seem to have to be the origin alluded to as preceding Douglas' first writing it down; I know I know that's synthesis/conjecture and I'm sure sources themselves have made it; but to me, it's interesting that both ranges, i.e. on either side of the river as being quite distinct ranges - but then I come from a "sea of ranges" and while the Coast Mountains are pierced six or seven times, or more, the Rockies only once - by the Peace - .... what I'm getting at is taht it's only by a grander sense of range than the original local context; likewise for crossing the Pit and Klamath, or in the old days indeed pierced also by the Fraser - but then also by the Homathko, the Skeena, the Nass, the Unuk, the Stikine, the Taku etc. it's the Rockies that are the more impressive for being a genuine wall; the Cascade/Coast distinction relative to the overall landform is of course the same macro range; at one time there was a unity on the issue - I'd venture that the 1918 provenance of the Coast Mountains designation had t o do with rising Canadian nationalism/consciousness post-WWI; a lot of naming went on around then, and it may have even been (here I go synthesizing/conjunctifying again) an Ottawa-based geographer/bureaucrat on order to distinguish the Canadian landform/name system from neighbouring US geography (we still had invasion plans for you then...). I'm not that familiar with northern California geography - I suppose there's a gap of sortsbetween Shasta-Lassen and the Sierras? Because certainly the Cascades and Coast Mountains more deserve the name Sierra nevada - the Snowy Mountains of course - it's incidental that until renaming Mount Judge Howay and neighbouring Mount Robie Reid were formerly called The Snow Peaks, think Iv'e also seen Snowy Range; Kind of a pity the name "the San Antonios" didn't survive the Spanish era.....also consider if the name New Caledonia had stuck these might hav been, perhaps, the Caledonian Alps (though the geography is, to me, more similar to Norway). All range designations are ultimately arbitrary and human-made, though reflective of geology and erosive patterns of course; on a local scale it's rare for smaller-scale ranges to be pierced by rivers; it does happen but it's rare; the medium-sized ranges like the Selkirks and Ominecas and Cariboos and so on are also "clumpish" - the hazelton Mountains are pierced in various ways, also the Skeena Mountains. It'd be a silly listing huh? - List of mountain ranges by number of rivers piercing them, but in a sense so is the statement that runs/implicates " the Cascades are so big they're pierced by [only] three rivers" - iot's a qualitative statement and conjecture, and largely irrelevant to meaningful geographic content; more of an obvious self-redundancy; humans were the ones who defined the range as spaninning all those three rivers; the rivers themselves had nothing to do with it ;-) Are teh Sierras pierced by any rivers, by the way? Anyway, g'nite, hope yu're geting some sleep....Skookum1 (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Re the hurricane it's doing it's thing outside - Kyle, it is - but AFAIK it's only a category 1 - I haven't been watching teh news, maybe I should; I didn't go out in it, I used to last year, but not with the new guitar - thought of taking the old one out but hunkered down tryintg to edit old video clips and also new recordings; last fall there were five or seven large pre-winter storms, including one formal hurricane, can't remember it's name; Halifax is in t"hurricane alley", though they're usually down graded to tropical storms or tropical disturbances by the time they get this far; Boston can get nailed and it miss us, or vice versa; let's put it this way, the wind's been gusty and I'm glad I'm not out in the soak, but the house isn't shaking as it would have been in the big couple of 'em last fall (some of the tropical storms were nearly as bad in effect as the hurricane). Sometimes these route into Toronto, which gets a few, and Montreal, and those don't head out here; BC has been getting the back end of the typhoons that hit Taiwan these last few yeares, changing weather patterns etc....15 during my last winter there, and over 57 days of rain in a row (maybe 100 at my place) at one point the winter before; I almost prefer the blizzards; the hurricanes are more like entertainment, a novelty, for me....I'm not planning on sticking around through the winter, though, if I can help it....Skookum1 (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
volcanoes section
I don't see a point for this page to include a list of the Cascade Volcanoes; i.e. as if they were more important to mention one-by-one than the many non-volcanic peaks; this is supposed to be a range article, not a volcanic arc article; I know there is a common perception in Oregon that the Cascades are only big volcanoes, but the North Cascades/Canadian Cascades, while nonetheless having a separate article, are still part of the range; having this big volcanoes list in this article confuses the nature of its content; yes, there should be a section, but the detailed list should be on the Cascade Volcanoes page....if no objections within a week or two, I'll do the migration; But if someone would care to pen up a different short section on teh volcanoes to go with the subsection here, that's be great (I'm a bit too prolix...); yes, the major volcanoes - Baker, Rainier, St. Helens, Adams, Hood, Three Sisters, Mazama, Shasta, Lassen - should all be mentioned; either that or a similar list of all the non-volcanic peaks northwards and inland should also be added for balance.....Skookum1 (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
"South from Baker" and not realy including anything north or east of that; my point is that this article otherwise doubles information in the other article, where there's lots of coverage of the volcanoes; is Slesse a volcano (a plug maybe, yes?). Cheam? Hozameen? �Stuart? Skaist? Coquihalla? Yak? Luna??Skookum1 (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Interesting; it has a stegosaurus-type appearance when viewed from the air (somewhere in Randall & Kat's Flying Photos there's a couple of good shots...). Tulameen Mountain is somewhat similar in appearance, I used to get them confused - have anything on it? Also there's some lava plus up in the area of the Okanagan Connector, or butte-type thingamawhatzits, I'd have to go over basemap to find them all again; I think you've already got Missezula Lake right? That area is all pothole-type lakes, very strange terrain on the map (and difficult to prominence, like one of those ball-in-the-maze toys....). Anyway what occurred to me about this page's "list of volcanoes" is it could/should just be a "list of peaks", as on other range-pages, and maybe done up as a table with "type/geology" as one of the fields; otherwise most of the northern half of the range's peaks are unnamed in the article; sure enough North Cascades can have a similar peak list; I just think not having Slesse, Cheam, Hope, Boston Bar Mtn, Lytton Mtn, Skaist, Outram, Coquihalla, Ogilvie, Tulameen, Yak (all prominent in the Canadian part of teh range) etc etc not on this page, when some are larger/higher than some of hte volcanoes listed....this is not a volcano page, which was the whole point of splitting off Cascade Volcanoes in the first place.....Skookum1 (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
And just to note that Washington summits such as Shuksan, American Sumas, Stuart, Luna, Hozomeen and numerous others are also notable; not as volcanoes, but notable....Skookum1 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
It makes me wonder if there are more volcanoes in the Canadian Cascades. I agree non-volcanic peaks should be included in the list, but one of the reasons it's only volcanoes is probably because there's less volcanic mountains in the Cascade Range than non-volcanic mountains and having a large list of non-volcanic (and maybe volcanic) mountains would make the page very long and harder to load (no?). List of mountains in the Cascade Range would probably work if a large enough list is made. Black Tusk (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
[undent]part of my reason for launching this issue is the length of the detailed listing of volcanoes-only; lengthy even if it were on the volcanoes page; page-length/load is an issue with any wiki page (look at Columbia River and its discussion) so extraneous materials, or materials which properly belong on another page, is always the best option (Vancouver#History is longer than History of Vancouver though, just because we've been too lazy to make the switch or it's too complicated; likewise History of British Columbia and British Columbia#History...other mountains you might want to look at - Hozomeen for sure. Missezula Lake I'll do up a lake stub for later, as it's a fair-sized rural recreational community now; but in the Cathedral Park there's volcanic formations, so I'm guessing elsewhere in the Okanagan Range also....Skookum1 (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
OK. I didn't find Coquihalla mentioned as a volcano actually. A colleage associated with the Geological Survey of Canada mentioned it is a major preserved stratovolcano when I asked for ages of the Pemberton, Garibaldi, Chilcotin, and Alert Bay belts. Then I found other volcano references related to Coquihalla elsewhere; maybe I should ask if there are more volcanoes in the Canadian Cascades other than Coquihalla. If the Cascade Range mountain list is created then the volcano list should be removed from this article and then added to the mountain list. Then the list can be added in the see also section. List of Cascade volcanoes was created in a similar way because the volcano list on Cascade Volcanoes was making the page very long and wasn't working properly. I didn't create Cascade Volcanoes because this is a mountain range article. I created it because the Cascade Range and the Cascade Volcanoes are two different formations. A similar mountain list can be made for the Coast Mountains as well. Black Tusk (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
e.g. the use of the term "province" is geologic in nature; here it's transposed into eco-language; elsewhere the term "cordillera" has been used to name an eco-region (more than one) with no attempt by the naming oragnization to even refer to the proper toponymy. they want to make up their own language/definitions, but use terms drawn from other fields without respect for those fields....really irritating, and no wonder I never went for "a degree in ecology".....Skookum1 (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Competing ecological definitions
I've just amended some language in the "Ecology" section which referred only to the Cailfornia Florsitic Province, a part of an ecology-region system created by Conservation International. The self-serving nature of ecological organizations continues to boggle the imagination, they all seem to want to refer only to their own systems and make no attempt to integrate/coordinate with others; Conservation Int'l vs the World Wilflife Fund vs the Environmenta Protectiohn Agency (whose system is an extension of that from the Centre for Environmental Cooperation/CEC and is the one in use by Environment Canada). At present, the Ecology section is POV because it only makes reference to the one system, and before I amended made it sound like that organization's term was an accepted, i.e. widespread term, isntead of a definition they're trying to promote. this is an ongoing and widespread problem across Wikipedia articles, and it doesn't help that sometimes the names of said regions mimic names of landforms or other non-ecological areas; This section shoudl have a full roster of the ecoregions/ecozones that have been imposed on the CAscades by the three (four?) different eco-groups. I'm in no mood to tidy it, and I find ecology resources irritating because of their sloppy geography and loosey-goosey word games; just noting that the section is POV in its current form and needs expansion to bring balance.Skookum1 (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
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."
"When the Cascades started to rise 7 million years ago in the Pliocene, the Columbia River drained the relatively low Columbia River Plateau." Wouldn't that be in the Miocene, not the Pliocene? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg.collver (talk • contribs) 09:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
there's been no administrator action on this CfD since I put it up the other night, and its creator User:Shannon1 approves of the move; choices are either Category:Canadian Cascades or Category:Cascade Mountains of British Columbia; the sister category is Category:North Cascades of Washington. Please drop by and "make a vote" and maybe opine on which name is better; maybe if there are more than just the two of us are present in the discussion and there is broader input it may spur an admin to action. Speedy renaming criteria did not include "mistaken name at time of creation". As noted in my comments there, it may be proper to split the North Cascades article between the US usage and the Canadian usage even though the Skagit, Hozameen and Okanagan Ranges bridge the border. Question for Americans familiar with the Okanagan Range - is it usually included in the usage of the term "North Cascades"?? Terrain-wise it's much more similar to the northern Hozameen Range and the Lytton-Coquihalla patch of the range (which doesn't have an official subrange name; unofficial names for some patches are the Anderson River Group, Llamoid Group, and Coquihalla Range, though there's no such designation for the Lytton Mtn/Kanaka Mtn area, maybe because they're not of interest to climbers.Skookum1 (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Once the renaming is done, I'll happily populate the category; but for now, with the name at present, I just can't.Skookum1 (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
First map in Geography section mis-labelled
Would the author of that map please re-label it; it is NOT correct to show the name "Cascade Range" on top of where the Coast Mountains are, or to label the Cascade Volcanoes in their Canadian portion as part of the Cascade Range; they are not. The label should simply be "Cascade Volcanoes" or "Cascade Volcanic Arc" or whatever the proper vulcanological group-term is.Skookum1 (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
please note that the most north of the Cascade Volcanoes is mt. Silverthorn just near mt. Waddington. Also their are volcanoes of the region that are potential dangerous such as mt. meager near whistler. Canadian geo science can fill in the details of these mt. There is further volcanic activity in the bella coola area also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.50.230 (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
In the intro: "All of the known historic eruptions in the contiguous United States have been from Cascade volcanoes." I don't think that's correct? There are volcanoes in the Mono-Inyo Craters (long valley caldera) area that erupted 550-600 years ago. Paoha Island erupted ~250 years ago. Of course, that predates the US constitution, so you could argue that means those don't count. But I think the statement is misleading anyway, because it implies that aside from the Cascades there are no other active volcanoes in the contiguous US that erupted during a "historic" period, which is incorrect. It might be better to say that "All of the known eruptions in the last 200 years in the contiguous United States have been from Cascade volcanoes"?--Leperflesh (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Northern limit
Cited Fred Beckey's description of the northern limits of the Cascades--being the Nicola, Thompson, and Fraser Rivers. The northernmost point of this delineation is the confluence of the Nicola and Thompson, at Spences Bridge, British Columbia. This page had said Mount Lytton was the northernmost peak, but given Beckey's definition (who ought to count as an expert authority on the northern Cascades!) and looking at topo maps, there are obvious peaks north of Mt Lytton yet south of and between the Nicola and Thompson Rivers. None of these peaks are given names on the rough topos available via ACME Mapper. A quick search on BCGNIS turned up one--"Mimenuh Mountain". BC Geographical Names., at 50°10'47''N, is slightly more northern than "Mount Lytton". BC Geographical Names., at 50°09'54''N--or maybe two: "Nicoamen Plateau". BC Geographical Names., at 50°12'00''N. Spences Bridge is at 50°25′25″ N. It's about 30 kilometres (19 mi) from Mt Lytton to Spences Bridge. The entire distance is mountainous, though not extremely so. Anyway, my point: I took out the mention of Mount Lytton. Pfly (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The Cascade Range was formed when the North American Techtonic Plate crashed into the plate next to it. I wonder how long it took or if there are any folded mountains in the Cascades. Does anyone know?-eeb
Actually the cascades are volcanic, they formed cause of the sinking of plates which melted and formed magma chambers and developed volcanoes. WanderingE1000 (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cascade Range/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Vast majority of the article is missing citations thus I cannot give it B class. RedWolf (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Changing importance to high, as it is a intrinsic part of Washington, and should be a number one priority, as it effects the whole state.Txjacob (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
And I don't think it should. "Cascades" is also a popular term for the Cascade Volcanoes. From looking at the Cascade Range article, it focuses mostly on the Cascade Volcanoes and not the Cascade Range per se, leaving me in question what this redirect really should redirect to. Or maybe Cascades (disambiguation) should be renamed to Cascades. Black Tusk (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The Cascade Volcanoes are a part of the Cascade Range. For Cascades to redirect here is wholly appropriate and fine. When a person talks about the Cascades, they are usually talking about the range as a whole, not just the volcanic peaks, especially in the geology scientific community.
The Cascade Volcanoes get their name from the Cascade Range, and the Cascade Range aka the Cascades gets its name from the Cascades Rapids et al. (Celilo Falls etc). In historical writing "he was at the Cascades" meant someone was in the locality of the Cascades Rapids, as a specific place; in modern terminology with a different preopsition means "he was in the Cascades" means he was in the mountain range somewhere. But the most common usage, clearly (especially when the Canadian usage of the term is included in deciding "most common usage") is clearly the mountain range (since none of the Canadian Cascades are Cascade Volcanoes although the Cascade Volcanoes extend into Canada, far beyond the boundary of the Cascade Range).Skookum1 (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
And to Ryoga-2003, absolutely not, no - they were originally one article and must needs be two as having different definitions and different contexts. The original unified article was heavily USPOV, as also is the notion that the Casacade Volcanoes and Cascade Range are one and the same. They are not (see previous post).Skookum1 (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Another thing I should note is what makes the Cascade Range well-known are the high peaks within it and most of those peaks are volcanoes. And many of the well-known peaks are volcanoes. Therefore I still don't think "Cascades" should redirect to the Cascade Range article. There is also the "Canadian Cascades" redirect to the North Cascades article. The Canadian portion of the Cascade Arc (the Canadian Cascade Arc) is also known as the "Canadian Cascades" and that subject is broader than the Canadian portion of mountain range. If I don't get comments within the next few days about this issue I will go ahead and make the "Cascades" and "Canadian Cascades" redirects disambiguation pages. Volcanoguy07:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
The Cascade Arc is NOT part of the Cascade Range. They are two different things. In Canada, the Cascade Arc extends through the Coast Mountains, which isn't part of the Cascade Range or the North Cascades. Volcanoguy12:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Read my lips: the Cascade Arc is at least 30 million years old while the Cascade Range is at least 6 million years old. Big difference. The Cascade Arc is a larger feature than the Cascade Range - look at a map and make sure you Americas don't make the same mistake over and over again. The Cascade Range ends at the Fraser River and beyond that are the Coast Mountains. The Canadian Cascades mountain range is a smaller feature than the Canadian Cascades volcanic arc. Volcanoguy12:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Here is a map of the North Cascades, which is the northern end of the Cascade Range. The Cascade Arc extends northwest of that into the Pacific Ranges (map) of the Coast Mountains. Only a very little portion of the Canadian Cascade Arc is located in the Canadian portion of the North Cascades. Volcanoguy13:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for reminding me (and other editors, regardless of nationality) about Mount Silverthorne, Mount Meager and so forth. Before we make any decision about redirection, I would like to see some reliable sources that
Show that what WP calls the "Canadian Cascades volcanic arc" is sometimes referred to as the "Canadian Cascades".
Show that what WP calls the "Cascade Volcanic arc" is somtimes referred to as the "Cascades"
Here are a few examples. This is a field trip paper titled "Effusive to explosive volcanism in the Canadian Cascades: Insights into landscape-controlled volcanic processes" by the University of British Columbia. From looking at the paper they are certainly referring to the Canadian Cascade Arc because the first summary sentence reads "this two day (one night) field trip will examine Quaternary volcanism in the Canadian portion of the Cascade arc; the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt (GVB)" and in the map below they show the locations of Mounts, Meager, Cayley and Garibaldi. In this USGS paper "Canadian Cascades volcanic arc" is mentioned. Here is another paper published by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries. There it mentions "similar encouraging results were recently reported in the Canadian Cascades where a geothermal exploration project measured a temperature of more than 200°C in the Meagher Creek area of British Columbia". Not as clear as the other sources but they are referring to the Canadian Cascade Arc because Meager Creek is at Mount Meager, which is in the Pacific Ranges. While I was researching I seen a document titled "2nd Volcano-Ice Interaction on Earth and Mars Conference". Within it was "Mathews later pioneering work [3, 4, 5] involved volcanic deposits in the Garibaldi volcanic belt (GVB) (e.g., Canadian Cascades)" but I couldn't get it to open so I can't give the link to it. Here under the "Canadian Cascades" title it mentions Meager: "The Meager Creek geothermal prospect in British Columbia is associated with a Pliocene to Recent volcanic complex (Fairbank and others, 1981). Rock types are andesite, dacite and rhyodacite lava flows, breccia and tuff forming a stratovolcano. The last eruption was 2550 yr. B.P.". Volcanoguy23:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose making Cascades a disambiguation page, per HIke 395, Ryoga-2003, and Skookum1. My own take using similar arguments:
Speaking as a person living in Oregon, “Cascades” is generally used to refer to the entire range. I can understand that a volcanologist (or avid volcanophile) might think of the individual volcanoes when thinking of the Cascades, but as far as I can see, for most people it means the entire range.
The Cascade Volcanoes are part of the Cascade Range. Given that one is a subset of the other, disambiguation doesn’t seem right. Redirecting Cascades to the Cascade Range article, which in turn mentions and links the Cascade Volcanoes in the lead seems more the proper way to go (unless “Cascades” is much more frequently used to refer to the volcanoes than the entire range, which doesn’t seem to be the case). I'll think more about the Cascade Volcano Arc as more info becomes available.-Wikimedes (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
In Canada, most of the Cascade Volcanoes are not in the Cascade Range. The Cascade Range is a geographical feature and the Cascade Volcanoes are a geological feature. Volcanoguy23:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
A volcanic arc with a similar setting is the Aleutian Arc in Alaska. It extends entirely through the Aleutian Islands, but it also extends through the Alaska Peninsula. The Cascade Arc is not different; the Cascade Arc extends entirely through the Cascade Range, but it also extends through the Pacific Ranges of the Coast Mountains. Another thing - how can the Cascade Arc be part of the Cascade Range if the Cascade Arc is an older feature? Read this it mentions "it is important to realize that the accumulation of these Cascade Arc volcanic and plutonic rocks is not the origin of the modern Cascade Range. The modern range is a much younger feature dating from only 5-7 million years". I don't know what is so hard to understand that the Cascade Arc and the Cascade Range are not the same thing. Volcanoguy00:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Cascades in Oregon
This article details very little of the Cascades in Oregon, mostly detailing Washington and California. Additional history of Mount Hood due to its climbing and recreational popularity and Mount Mazama (Crater Lake) at the least should be included. Adding more of this history would make it more thorough and balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.31.17 (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I would concur: add it if it is reliably sourced. I've seen the boundary between the Sierra and the Cascades to be defined as either Fredonyer Pass [1] or the Susan River [2].
The USGS Sutter Butte website [3] strongly argues against the fact that the Sutter Buttes are the southernmost Cascades. Perhaps you've heard some outdated geology? —hike395 (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
There's more arguments for Sutter Buttes to being a unique, separate small mountain range than being a part of the Sierras, Cascades, or Coast Range. If you drive up to them, they really just stand out in the middle of the essentially flat Central Valley, with no relationship to anything nearby. Geologically, the arose out of a closed fault system that has no relationship to the Cascades or Sierras. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The first source contains no mention of "Cascade". The second is a bare mention and doesn't cite sources. It is contradicted by the third source below, to wit, "The Sutter Buttes are not part of the Cascade Range of volcanoes to the north, but instead are related to the volcanoes in the Coast Ranges to the west in the vicinity of Clear Lake, Napa Valley, and Sonoma Valley."
A mention of Sutter Buttes may be appropriate when a discussion of the bounds of the Cascade Range is added to the article. But it may confuse readers to include it in the article without adequate context. --Walter Siegmund(talk)15:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
This paper clearly states that the Sutter Buttes are not part of the Cascades and really aren't part of the Coast Ranges, though the magma intrusion into the sedimentary layers is part of the Coast range, which I guess means it is really related to them. I think this qualifies as a reliable source that pretty much scientifically removes the Sutter Buttes from being considered as part of the Cascades. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
The Infobox gives "Age of rock" as "Pliocene". This is nonsensical. The article states that "the Cascades began to rise … in the Pliocene", but that doesn't mean that ANY of the rocks are that age, just that their positions began to change then. In the northern part of the range, many rocks are far older; in the southern part, many are far younger. I don't know what change to make, only that it doesn't make sense as is. Maybe "Age of rock" was meant to convey "age of range" (although that's complicated by the many volcanoes)? In which case I'd say the entry should be "Pliocene through Holocene". Wildbirdz (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you've found a factual error that was introduced when we swapped infobox templates. The template parameter used to be shown with the generic "Period", but then became specific "Age of Rock", which is not correct in this case. I removed the field. Thanks for finding this. —hike395 (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
