On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:29:44 -0600, Beetnik <[log in to unmask]>

>For those of you who are unfamiliar, Mt Hunger is the bald peak you see
>just east of Route 100 as you careen towards Stowe from Waterbury. It's
>a paltry ~3550 feet tall but somehow manages to have a sizable area
>"above treeline", though in this case it may be due to fire instead of
>harsh weather. It is particularly rocky and exposed to winds coursing
>through the gap of the Winooski river so who knows.

Having just investigated this peak on Saturday, I'd have to guess that
the steady winds and rocky terrain account for the essentially bald
summit.  Oustanding views to the West, South, and East.  Very high
foot traffic on Saturday, including myself, Kathleen, and our two
sons.  Keeping up the family tradition of biting off more outdoor
adventure than we bargained for, we spent the better part of 3 hours
assaulting the flanks of Mt. Hunger with a 3 year old a 2.5 month
old in tow.  Conor actually hiked quite gamely for the first 3/4 of
a mile or so, and then is was time for a ride in the backpack.

>The climb from the Waterbury side is a scant 2.2 miles or steady
>intermediate grade

Didn't seem scant to me, but with just stuff and no kids 1.5 hours
to the summit wouldn't be a problem.

>that pitches up to double-diamond about 400 verts
>below the summit.

Kathleen and the baby made it to this point and wisely chose to head
back down as the climbing did become quite steep.  Conor and I pressed
on and were treated with sublime views about 1/3 of a mile later.

>From what I could see through the fog there is at least 200 vertical feet
>of steep and open terrain at the summit, possibly another 300-400 if you
>ski south on the ridgeline toward White Rock.

I would definitley concur and would add that the other minor summits to
the north along the Skyline Trail warrant investigation as well.  The
true summit of the Worcester Mtns. is the often unmarked Mt. Putnam, not
very far north along the ridgeline, and it too has a similarly bald

>Another hiking trail climbs the east side of the
>mountian so maybe that would be a better choice for skiing.

The White Rock trail appears to have a slightly shorter approach
from the Montpelier (East) side, and intersects with Waterbury trail
right where the steepest part begins.

>In the trees there were many possibilities down low and up high but mid
>mountain seemed to have an awful lot of brush.

Again I concur.  The lower part of the Waterbury trail feels a bit
like some of the areas leading down to Rt. 108 from Smuggler's, with
widely spaced hardwoods and plenty of 10-15' ledges thrown in.

>The hiking trail is fairly wide though so if the woods arent good it would
>be an enjoyable run by itself.

Wide is a relative term in this case, but you should be able to link turns
down the actual trail itself, although a snowpack of at least 36" would be

With its proximity to Stowe and the ease of car access I am sure
Mt.Hunger's flanks do get skied.  Anyone interested in some investigation
of the possibilities there this winter?

Jim B.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit