Do you find that the mountains here pale in comparison to other bigger, more prominent mountains in Switzerland, Alaska, Canada and Tibet, especially considering the basicness of the American Southwest landscape? At least in more wet regions like Switzerland the flora is more abundant and the landscape is absolutely green, even if they're in an urban developed country like Switzerland. I kind of find the Rocky Mountains sorta lazy, but able to do a lot with what little they have. The best peaks are the ones with a sly, subtle amount of rocky snow-line terrain, with miles and miles of rolling and steep hills. When its the right particular season like October or June (On a wet year), everything can seem like its own unique expirience from a mountain perspective. The somewhat-low prominence on even the biggest of 14ers makes Colorado a unique place to explore because of ease of access. In the Pacific Northwest, Mt. Rainer is the more impressive looking of mountains, yet it is absolutely not for any beginner. Colorado is more approachable, but not in that meh category that are the East Coast Vermont and NH mountains (Maine, I'll get to you later. Just wait a minute). I find that the best trips thusly are the ones taken on a whim and completely unplanned. I used to do this, as the mountains posed enough of a challenge for a day trip but not enough to need a game plan. Save Capitol Peak, of course and the Maroon Bells. But almost everything here that looks cool can be traveled to if you are at least somewhat active. So thank you Colorado, for your mischievous looking ranges, with just enough stone and snow jutting out of a wavy forest to capture my eye. And make me think there was something to be had there. Theres nothing else like it in America.