Folly Peak via East Branch instead of Snow Creek climb?

[asabat]

For those wanting to follow the "rules", a glance at the topo suggests climbing Folly Peak via the East Branch of Snow Creek might be an alternative to the lack of legal access to the Snow Creek route. The Each Branch could be accessed fairly easily and legally from the PCT where one switchback comes pretty close. (The PCT should have gone closer for a water supply.)

A quick google found no trip reports on this route. Does anyone have any info? An enjoyable strenuous climb, or endless dry falls, or endless scree, or???

[Hikin_Jim]

One wonders what it would be like to scramble from the PCT to the East Branch. I imagine that somewhere between the PCT jump off point to the summit there would be some class 5 climbing involved.

Last time I did Folly, I did it from the summit of San Jac which I had reached via an old trail that comes up from the vicinity of the San Jac - Miller Peak saddle. That old trail is just about non existant these days.

[Rumpled]

Hey, woulda been nice to know about that, as when I went this past summer I bagged both SJ and Miller.

[asabat]

IIRC the PCT was supposed to touch the West Branch around 3,900'. Leaving the PCT there wouldn't work for this purpose though. Maybe leave it at 3,200' and contour down to Snow Creek just north of the West/East Branch junction.

Just looking at the topo, the problem area would seem to be between 4,000 and 4,800'. I'd be interesting if there was a bypass there. The (admitted low detail) map suggests perhaps a chute from 3,900' to a possible ledge area around 4,700'. Just guessing on my part.

If I was younger...

[FIGHT ON]

IIRC the PCT was supposed to touch the West Branch around 3,900'. Leaving the PCT there wouldn't work for this purpose though. Maybe leave it at 3,200' and contour down to Snow Creek just north of the West/East Branch junction.

Just looking at the topo, the problem area would seem to be between 4,000 and 4,800'. I'd be interesting if there was a bypass there. The (admitted low detail) map suggests perhaps a chute from 3,900' to a possible ledge area around 4,700'. Just guessing on my part.

If I was younger...

asabat, I am unfamiliar with this area. Are you referring to either of the two points on this map? I looked on the Tom Harrison Map and it looks like they are about the same spots.
Where exactly is the area that people aren't supposed to go? If you know.
And what are you saying? To go DOWN THAT STEEP SECTION?
Again I have no idea about this area, But If this is a legal way I sure would consider it!

[asabat]

Yes. "A" is where there could have been a route to the stream for water, contouring back. "B" is my thought on access. The hill is not as steep as the (illegal) switchback shortcutting many apparently make right about the middle of Section 29 just a bit to the north, so they can knock off a half-mile long switchback.

Again, while I have hiked the PCT throughout this area, I have no knowledge of this potentially nut-case route I'm asking about.

[asabat]

Oh, where not to go? There's a legal boundary shown on the map you linked to just east of points A and B. That looks to be roughly where the off-limits land is.

[Hikin_Jim]

Hey, woulda been nice to know about that, as when I went this past summer I bagged both SJ and Miller.

For what it's worth, here's my general approach to route planning: I will generally look at my objectives (peak, campsite, view point, or what have you). If there's a trail that serves well, of course I'll use the trail. However, if the trail takes a roundabout route, I may opt to take an XC route (factoring in conditions and the fact that XC travel is generally slower than trail travel). I generally use the trails as much as possible, trying to reduce my XC travel in areas served by trails. However if there's some obvious XC route that will save significant time, I may take it.

In the case of San Jac, I will sometimes follow the Sid Davis drainage up to the Tamarack camp area, passing through the large bowl like area above Tamarack, and heading towards San Jac peak but cutting slightly south, I join a long abandoned trail which connects to the main trail coming in from Wellman Divide. I'll take the main trail to the Miller-San Jac saddle, cutting cross country for the last little bit to the saddle. From the saddle, I'll basically follow the ridge up. Counterintuitively, I found that staying slightly on the N side of the crest of the ridge was the best route (indeed there were the remains of an old trail). From the summit, I descended the long ridge down to the saddle between Folly and San Jac. From there I continued along the ridge first to "Little Folly" (a small rocky out crop, insignificant as a peak but fun to climb on) and then to Folley proper. Folley is an indistinct peak by the way, and unlike SJ, the views aren't very good. From Folley, I countoured back to the saddle on the main trail near the hut and then for variety took the main trail down to the tram.

The untrailed high country of the SJ's is really great stuff. If you haven't been to Marion Mtn and Jean Peak, I think that's one of the nicest off trail hikes in Southern California.

[FIGHT ON]

Oh, where not to go? There's a legal boundary shown on the map you linked to just east of points A and B. That looks to be roughly where the off-limits land is.

Lots of boundaries all over this area. Which one is the "Snow Creek off limits area where the guard is gonna call the sheriff if you don't get outta there area?" I marked A,B,C,D on this map. Is that it?
BTW, What are all those other boundaries? Any restrictions on those?

[scottmac]

Woody the caretaker told me that essentially the square "33" is the of-limits water department land.