Map to the McDowells	A very nice campsite, complete with burgers on the grill!	Day one, catching some sun.		Delicate footwork for Wil!
Angie and Micheal on Second Pitch	Angie- dorm advisor for OCRS	Angie	Team one at the top of pitch one	Team two at the top of pitch one!
Hunter on pitch two- way to go!	Matt and will as a team 250 ft. up!	Nate Davis - Our fearless guide	Nate Leading Pitch 2- Nice footwork!	Nate is leading off the belay onto the second pitch.
The boys- Looking solid!	Matt and Will

And yes a 'Mountain Range' does have specific requirements to qualify:

No clear consensus emerged on the definition of the “mountain,” or of the “hill,” however.

*The search for THE definition of mountains either doesn’t matter or is an exercise in futility. No matter how useful it would be to lawmakers to have a definition for “pornography,” none has ever proved workable. That’s a damned good thing. And the same goes for “mountain.”

*Geologists, soil scientists, hydrologists and other physical and biological sciences need to adopt naming conventions that facilitate research and scholarly discourse. Others have definitions as per the requirements of their disciplines. Rather than we define what a mountain or hill is, let us ask the local people

*People’s perception of the differences between hills and mountains are locality-specific or context-specific. In Nepal the general distinction is “hills” are green and mountain are “snow-covered.” This distinction based on color, however, is not universally applicable.

*Let us not give a new definition but accept the existing names and describe the specific features according to the purpose let us not tie ourselves down to a rule that goes beyond what we have been following for years and years;

*How do we define hills and mountains from the human point of view (not just cold scientific point of view)? Can we define hills from mountains by the cultures that live on them? I feel that defining hills and mountains without considering the human cultures that live on them as a vital parameter, is a gross under-definition. The human network in hills and mountains combined, is not as static an element as elevation and vegetation-type and geological make-up, but is rather a very dynamic and unavoidable part of what mountains and hills are.

Something like definitions

*Hills may go as high up as 3,000 feet (about 1,000 m), with grassy, scrub and broad-leaf vegetation, while a mountain may be higher than that with pine forests and snow-covered peaks.

*Han Hunni in “Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in African and Asia Mountains” (Royal Swedish Academy of Science 1999, Ambio, Vol 28, No 5, August 1999) gives altitude and slope as the two major criteria for the physical definition of a mountain eco-region. As these two factors influence the climate, vegetation, soil formation and hydrological processes, the most significant difference between mountain area and lowland is the abrupt changes in vegetation. At any latitude, the hill area is not high enough to show a significant change in vegetation, whereas mountain area is high enough to demonstrate various vegetation belts.

*From the kind of analysis that Mr. Hurni carried out, I believe relief maps of the terrain (characteristics) are important, not the names of the terrain (not the terms).

*To my understanding hills and mountains are elevated features of the earth’s surface the standard measure of which is ‘altitude’. There is an indirect relationship between altitude and vegetation, but a direct relationship between climatic conditions (temperature and humidity) and vegetation. The climatic conditions change with altitude at the same grid location (higher the altitude lower the temperature), thus influencing the vegetation. The climatic conditions also change with ‘latitude’ at the same altitude (generally temperature decreases from equator to poles), thus influencing the vegetation. (From Hurni’s definition it appears as if there will be similar vegetation at 500 m altitude all over the world, but this is not so.)

*One definition I read in a geomorphology text years ago was that a mountain is a landform that rises 3000 feet vertically over a distance of 1 mile.

*Grade-6 teacher’s definition of how people in his village in Pakistan differentiated the two: “Hills are those landforms having more sand/soft texture of soil irrespective of height and with good vegetation; whereas the mountains contain more hard rocks irrespective of height.”

*Grade-6 teacher’s definition based on texture doesn’t cut it either. There are plenty of “hard hills” and bountiful vegetation in the Himalaya can extend quite a bit higher than the highest Swiss Alps. In any case, hills are often parts of mountains. Are we going to say a feature is a hill up to a certain point and then becomes a mountain? Or perhaps that the front of a lump is, according to the anthrocentric definition, a hill, while the backside is a mountain? And what do we do about the fact that hills may be growing into or ground down from mountains?

*Platforms and hills correspond to the 200-500 m mean elevation class and have a greater degree of roughness (RR>20%). Plateaus (16.8 M km2), with mean elevations between 500 and 6000 m, have a medium degree of roughness (RR from 5 to 40%). Mountains (33.3 M km2) are differentiated from hills by their higher mean elevation, (>500 m), and from plateaus by their greater roughness (>20% then >40%) in each elevation class. Accordingly, Tibet and the Altiplano are very high plateaus, not mountains. (Source: Meybeck M., Green P., Vorosmart C. A New Typology for Mountains and Other Relief Classes: An Application to Global Continental Water Resources and Population Distribution, MRD Journal, Vol.21.1, pp 34-45)

I am reminded of Justice Potter Stewart’s remark in conjunction with Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964): “I can’t define pornography, but I know it when I see it.” The same paradox pertains in much of language. What is “good,” “ugly,” “fast”? How do we delimit the concept of “table” around the edges? When does a “village” become a “town” and a “town” become a “city”?
Language only works because of the fuzzy nature of our logic.

Why exactly do we need a definition of “mountain”? Do we need to keep the Australian Alps and the White Mountains of New Hampshire off the agenda at our conferences? Are we wasting our time if we let the Tibetologists discuss their flat highlands? Will our deliberations be side-tracked if we consider seamounts that rise 30,000 feet from the ocean floor but look like mere knolls from the landlubber’s perspective?

The fact is that there are an unlimited number of reasons for studying mountains, and the features which are pertinent to one agenda may be irrelevant to another. There are respects in which Mt. Washington (2000 m) and can be more usefully compared to Mt Everest than can any 4000 m Himalayan promontory. Why should this be a problem?
Clearly, it will often be necessary for us to define the terms we use... in the context that we wish them to be understood. And the next time somebody else will use the same words in other ways. This is inherent in the nature of words. No matter how useful it would be to lawmakers to have a definition for “pornography,” none has ever proved workable. That’s a damned good thing. And the same goes for “mountain.”