Bronco

There are few Grizzlies out there and you're much more likely to see a Black Bear with brown fur. I've seen a bunch. Thanks for the trip report, pretty active five days!

Super discounted from $180 to $27 USD. Willing to work with the fixed leg loops. https://outlet.arcteryx.com/ca/en/shop/mens/skaha-harness

from here: https://www.climbing.com/culture-climbing/climbers-new-summit-peru/?utm_source=Mountain+Tactical+Institute&utm_campaign=fa2d4fb6fe-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_05_14_04_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-108b308039-274756150&mc_cid=fa2d4fb6fe&mc_eid=83876508f4 Last month, professional European alpinists Dani Arnold, Alexander Huber, and Simon Geitl climbed some outrageously beautiful new terrain on Jirishanca (6,125m), in Peru’s Cordillera Huayhuash range. Photos circulated soon after, showing the men jamming steep grey limestone, perched on exposed bivy ledges, and smiling on what looked to be a summit. But the most widely shared image was one taken directly below the mountain’s southeast aspect. In the photo, a bright red line traces a weakness in the steep rockwall before branching onto the East Ridge. The climbers proudly touted their effort as a new route: Kolibri (5.11d A2), which ended on the mountain’s “east summit.” The only problem? The east summit doesn’t exist. The stunning southeast side of Jirishanca with the line of Kolibri marked. Kolibri climbs sections of the route Suerte(also known as the Italian Route) and finishes on the East Ridge, which was first climbed in 1957. From this foreshortened angle, the “east summit” does indeed look prominent. But another, more honest angle (shared below) depicts this feature as merely a brief bump in an otherwise steep landscape. (Photo: Dani Arnold) Where is Jirishanca’s “east summit”? Climbing has, for better and worse, written extensively about Jirishanca over the last three years. In 2022, Americans Josh Wharton and Vince Anderson freed Suerte (5.13a WI 6 M7; 1,060m) during the same period that Canadians Quentin Roberts and Alik Berg established Reino Hongo (M7 AI 5+ 90° snow). Afterward, the Canadians accepted alpinism’s greatest formal honor: the Piolet d’Or. Two years later, Jirishanca became the backdrop of a great debate when Reel Rock made a film about Suerte—but photoshopped key moments out. So when I—who’d edited or written no fewer than four in-depth articles about the mountain—first saw the image of Jirishanca marked up with the supposed line of Kolibri, I was surprised I hadn’t heard of an “east summit” before. Wharton had climbed high on the same ridge in 2015 and 2019 before reaching the main summit. Had he ever considered stopping on this so-called sub-peak? When I connected with Wharton over email, he told me he was unaware of any “east summit.” “I actually reached [the Kolibri team’s] high point on my very first trip to Jirishanca in 2015, climbed well beyond it in 2019, and ultimately made the actual summit in 2022,” he told me. “What they are describing as a ‘summit’ is really just a flat spot in the ridge about six to eight pitches of non-trivial climbing from the actual summit.” Wharton explained that, compared to the relatively straightforward rock climbing that comprises the lower section of the mountain, Jirishanca’s steep, snow-choked summit ridge is actually the mountain’s crux “in terms of logistics, conditions, and tactics.” The summit ridge may not have a flashy mixed or rock grade, but it includes real, consequential fifth-class snow climbing. Dani Arnold stands in slings during a steep mixed pitch on Kolibri. (Photo: Dani Arnold) Wharton also said that, generally, he was not hyper-critical of those who end alpine routes below the summit. “I’m not a ‘summit guy’ when it comes to trivial snow fields, a five-foot summit boulder problem, or even three pitches of 5.8 atop a 15-pitch 5.13, for instance,” he said. However, for big, technical mountains like Jirishanca, he admits that, for him, “the true summit does count for something.” I then reached out to Quentin Roberts to ask if he’d heard of an “east summit.” He said no, and sent me a photo of Jirishanca from a more sobering perspective, circling the flat bump which constituted the Europeans’ “summit.” Jirishanca from the southwest. The red circle marks roughly where the Kolibri team labels the “east summit.” (Photo: Quentin Roberts) What were Arnold, Geitl, and Huber thinking? Thoroughly confused, slightly annoyed, but still hopeful some logical answer existed, I decided to ask Arnold to explain himself. Was he aware of other climbers who recognized the east summit? Was he at all interested in reaching the main summit? Over email, he said he was “not sure” about other parties ending their routes where he ended his, and acknowledged that the team’s ultimate goal was, indeed, to gain the main summit. When Arnold and his team breached the steep rock crux low on the mountain, they felt certain they would stand on top. But conditions would have it otherwise. “It turned out that the most challenging part was not where we thought it would be,” he explained, describing the upper slopes as having “extremely dangerous” snow conditions. “You can dig down a meter and still won’t find any holds.” During this email exchange with Arnold, any remaining benefit of the doubt I had dissipated. Arnold, Huber, and Geitl had retroactively lowered their definition of success midway through their climb. They wanted the main summit. They realized the main summit was too dangerous/difficult to attain. They looked around, noticed they were on a relatively flat piece of terrain, and decided their “route” ended on that “summit.” That doesn’t seem very sporting to me, and it sets a poor example to any aspiring alpinist who looks up to these professionals. The team poses on their summit, with the top of the mountain conveniently out of view. (Photo: Dani Arnold) What they should have been celebrating I was truly disappointed to realize these climbers had probably invented a new summit merely for the purposes of sharing an archetypal climbing success story. I’m not sure whether their decision was the result of inflated egos or the sponsor-induced pressures of being a modern-day professional alpinist. Regardless, it felt like there was an underlying sense of inadequacy at play. I thought back to something the American alpinist Colin Haley had written for Alpinist in 2016. He titled the Facebook series “No shame in failure.” “[…] Climbing to the very top of a mountain is always more difficult than climbing only partway to the top of a mountain. … More painful are the times that we badly want to reach the top of the mountain, but the various forces that make alpinism difficult turn us down below. However, just because we’ve failed does not mean we can’t be proud of our effort. … When I see climbers claiming success without reaching the top of the mountain, it makes me believe that there must be some sort of misplaced shame in an attempt. …” Haley went on to share anecdotes about the numerous near-miss successes of his career, including, most notably, Patagonia’s Torre Traverse (5.11 A1; 2,220m) in a single day with Alex Honnold—save for two straightforward pitches of rime-ice climbing. Haley didn’t pretend there was some new, previously unknown sub-summit two pitches below Cerro Torre’s real summit. He chalked the experience up to an attempt—itself among his best climbing accomplishments—and returned the next year to finish it up. In the high-stakes game of alpinism, the Jirishanca team’s approach feels like a fundamentally dangerous idea to promote: that “success” only happens if you reach a summit. Instead, I wish they were emphasizing their decision to prioritize safe, secure climbing over achieving their goal. After all, the summit wasn’t impossible, it was unexpectedly difficult. I want to celebrate this team for ending their attempt when the terrain exceeded their risk tolerance. I do not want to celebrate them for inventing a new summit because they felt obligated to share a textbook definition of success. That is not the spirit of alpinism.

Pretty great, the force is strong in this one.

The North Peak of Index is a proud outing. One of the difficult 10 if you didn't know and now you have first hand route details for going back for the full traverse.

For clarification, it's my understanding they were climbing the glacier route on Silver Star and fell in the area of Chianti Spire. I'm a mountain rescue volunteer and don't have any problem with them requesting a rescue. Falls like that can cause internal injuries that may not be apparent. Live streaming the rescue is totally inappropriate and should result in a loss of phone privileges for a minimum of two weeks and no TV after dinner.

My takeaway is don't get complacent if you're not the team leader or you're just less experienced than your partners. Research the routes, know the descent and if you have concerns, speak up. I wonder what compelled this group to intentionally plan to descend the climbing route (the day before) instead of the standard descent that did have fixed anchors.

Great timing catching the avalanche! 👍

Awesome, thanks for posting!

Awesome, that's a good day in the alpine!

Someone on FB linked this go fund me page for one of the climbers. RIP. https://www.spotfund.com/story/f2174a23-36a7-4434-bf55-853dce5d17af?fbclid=IwY2xjawKQmSxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFxdHdMcjI4N3VEakpZSmN0AR6AS8Hodhucn9wrKe56lQ9ozehQodGwuPuueXkVs6vLvtpmpnYOnX38S1Ogfg_aem_wqvs2a2IOK7RronyZfN5sQ

Holy cow that was hilarious!

Hopefully some Washington Pass action once the snow melts a bit and plantar fasciitis/achilles tendonitis heals up.

More evidence that boomers ruin everything for the youngsters. How's this kid supposed to be the youngest to climb anything now?

Nice write up and Showa 282-02's for the win!

I wonder how this will affect NCNP permitting this summer. Self issue? No enforcement? Will it be overrun with social media content dorks? Might be a busy summer for SAR.

Nice, congrats on completion of the Difficult 10!

Congrats Jason!

So, what's up with the new helmet? I always appreciated your old clunker in photos....

At least you're not in snowshoes! Nice report!

Saw some climbers coming off of Goat Wall near Mazama. Sounds like some of those climbs are in.

https://methowvalleynews.com/2025/01/16/feds-announce-new-plan-for-grizzly-bear-recovery-in-west/ Feds announce new plan for grizzly bear recovery in West JANUARY 16, 2025 BY ANN MCCREARY Map courtesy of U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a new approach to promoting grizzly bear recovery in the Western states, managing them as one population in a large area. Propose ‘landscape-scale’ management Grizzly bears will be protected in western states under a “new and comprehensive approach to grizzly bear recovery” announced last week by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The federal wildlife agency proposal retains the bears’ designation as a threatened species, and manages them as one population in a large geographic area that encompasses all of Washington state and large parts of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. The new approach is a significant change from a decades-old practice of managing bears as separate populations in six areas designated as “recovery zones” — including one in the North Cascades, which currently has no known grizzly bears. In announcing its proposal on Jan. 8, FWS also rejected petitions that had been submitted by the states of Montana and Wyoming seeking to remove federal protections for grizzly bears and turn management over to the states. Instead, the agency chose to pursue a landscape-scale management approach for grizzly bears in the lower 48 states. The proposal would classify grizzly bears as a “distinct population segment” that includes the six recovery zones and additional areas where suitable habitat exists and where grizzly bears currently reside or are expected to become established as populations recover. As part of the reclassification, FWS also proposed revising regulations protecting bears, providing more flexibility to agencies involved in research and management, and to landowners experiencing conflict with bears. The flexibility, provided through a “4(d) rule,” includes actions like deterrence, capture and relocation, or shooting bears in specific instances, such as during attacks on livestock or working dogs. “This reclassification will facilitate recovery of grizzly bears and provide a stronger foundation for eventual delisting,” said Martha Williams, FWS director. “And the proposed changes to our 4(d) rule will provide management agencies and landowners more tools and flexibility to deal with human/bear conflicts, an essential part of grizzly bear recovery.” Removed protections In designating the distinct population segment boundaries, FWS also removed protections outside those boundaries in the lower 48 states, “where grizzly bears do not occur and are not expected to inhabit in the future,” FWS said. Grizzlies have been listed as a threatened species throughout all the lower 48 states since 1975. A distinct population segment is defined under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a population of vertebrates that is discrete from other populations of the species and significant to the species as a whole. FWS said the new management approach is warranted because grizzly bears are moving between populations in recovery zones “indicating recovery zones are no longer discrete” and grizzly bear distribution “has significantly expanded.” This increased movement of bears between recovery areas “demonstrates the remarkable success of conservation and management efforts” by federal, state and tribal agencies “and private landowners, who support coexistence with grizzly bears,” FWS said in a Q&A section on its website. As a result of conservation and management efforts, the population of grizzly bears has grown from a few hundred bears when they were listed as threatened 40 years ago to more than 2,000 today, FWS said. Recovery of small and extirpated populations, like the North Cascades, “relies on contributions from high resilient populations,” FWS said. “Maintaining all recovery zones together in one DPS (distinct population segment) will increase the speed of recovery in remaining ecosystems and the overall viability of grizzly bears, increasing the likelihood of successfully delisting the entire DPS by addressing the species’ recovery needs as a whole.” North Cascades implications Plans are underway to relocate grizzly bears from the Rocky Mountain area to the North Cascades — one of the six recovery zones — in an effort to restore bears to their historic habitat in mountains near the Methow Valley. As part of the North Cascades recovery plan approved last year by FWS, after years of study, bears in the North Cascades are designated a “nonessential experimental population.” That’s a designation provided under the ESA for a group of threatened or endangered species that are restored in an area that is geographically isolated from other populations. The grizzly bear recovery plan for the North Cascades includes a rule, called 10(j), that provides management options like deterrence, relocation or even killing bears, much like those just announced for the larger distinct population segment. However, there is a difference in the way the management rules for bears in the North Cascades and the larger population of grizzly bears will be applied, explained Andrew Lavalle, public affairs specialist with FWS. “Flexibilities under the proposed 4(d) rule are tied to the recovery status of a given population, meaning certain actions may only be allowed if the population meets specific recovery goals. In contrast, the North Cascades 10(j) rule provides these flexibilities regardless of the population’s recovery status,” Lavalle said. Additionally, federal agencies are not required to consult with FWS about actions that could impact bears in the North Cascades, while consultation would be required in other areas within the distinct population segment boundaries, Lavalle said. Legal challenges The decision to maintain federal protections for grizzly bears was applauded by the Center for Biological Diversity, a conservation organization that advocates for grizzly bear recovery. “With ongoing federal protections, grizzlies in the Northern Rocky Mountains and North Cascades will have a real change at long-term recovery, instead of being gunned down and mounted on trophy walls,” said Andrea Zaccardi of the Center. However, Zaccardi criticized the proposed rule that would permit bears to be killed in more situations than is currently allowed for threatened species under the ESA, for example, by property owners when bears attack livestock or dogs. “While grizzlies won’t be killed by state-sponsored trophy hunts, I’m concerned that their recovery will be harmed as more bears die at the hands of the livestock industry,” Zaccardi said. She also criticized FWS for not including in the distinct population segment boundaries places like California and Colorado, “where the bears once lived and abundant habitat remains.” FWS has previously attempted to delist bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, declaring the population recovered in 2007 and in 2017. Both times the decision was challenged by conservation groups and overturned in federal court — in the latter case just before a state-approved grizzly bear hunting season was set to open in Wyoming. FWS is under court ordered settlement agreement with the state of Idaho requiring the service to complete an evaluation of grizzly bear listing in the lower 48 states by January 2026. The announcement last week is part of fulfilling that agreement, FWS said. “Courts have urged the Service to consider the interconnectedness of grizzly bear populations. This revision incorporates lessons learned from prior litigation while balancing the need for management flexibility with implementing conservation measures. The goal is to achieve the species’ long-term, durable recovery and eventual delisting,” FWS said. Public comment period A 60-day public comment period on the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed grizzly bear distinct population segment designation and the 4(d) management rule will open on Jan. 15, after publication in the Federal Register. For information on the proposed rule and how to participate in the public comment process, visit the project webpage: www.fws.gov/grizzlyrulemaking. A final rule is expected by January 2026. FWS has also scheduled public meetings in Missoula, MT on Jan. 28, Coeur d’Alene, ID on Jan. 29, a virtual meeting on Jan. 30, and Cody, WY on Feb. 10. More information is on the website.

Careful man, that log looks to be under quite a bit of tension and large enough to do some damage!

This one is highly recommended. All of these come with the caveat of needing low avalanche danger forecast which happens to coincide with good climbing conditions (firm snow).