mattp

As a whole, I'd support maintaining most of the main trunk roads and many of the side-roads leading up to higher trailheads or off-trail access points, though perhaps not all of them. I sure wouldn't support maintaining every side road and spur that served all the clearcuts.

I gotta say I've been climbing in the North Cascades for thirty years and I don't sense any over-riding systemic hostility to climbing in the region on the part of the land managers. Yes, there have been districts and personnel here and there who really have been kind of hostile. And yes, I posted a thread on cc.com several years ago about how the rangers have often tended to lie or distort the danger or over-hype poor conditions in an attempt to discourage us. In general, my sense is that things are getting better in this regard as climbing has become less and less of a counterculture activity, and as logging and resource extraction are becoming less than the primary goal of land management. I disagree with some of the management priorities and programs, but the good people working in the North Cascades National Park, Baker Snoqualmie National Forest, Okanogan National Forest, and Wenatchee too do a tremendous amount of work to maintain our recreational access and answer our phone calls or to rescue us when we get in trouble. The newsletter excerpt that Fairweather linked above shows where conservation people want to take advantage of budget constraints to "win" a reduction in recreational access, and I think we'd do better to try to work for more money in the road and trail budget than to complain about a hostile management team.

Billbob, we have had many discussions related to this question over the years. CC.COM IS a public forum, but in many ways we get so comfortable wasting time at work or logging in after the kids go to bed that we treat it like a private playground. We’ve got our pet issues, or our pet peeves with certain posters, and we fling about all kinds of ill thought or maybe even ill intentioned spew without a second thought. E-mail communication can be similar, and that is why I try to avoid it in my professional life. People tend to treat it as informal communication, but our messages are written down and they tend to be preserved or forwarded to someone we don’t anticipate. The history of this site shows that your concern is based in reality. A few years ago, I was called names for suggesting that rangers and reporters read cc.com, but over and over again we have seen that they do and that our words here have real effect elsewhere. I don’t think there is any “answer” to your query, but all of us should keep this in mind

I hate every one of you stupid motherf#ckers because every g#d damned one of you is so hateful. Any you are a bunch of chumps, too. So there. Plus, you have little dicks and you don't know sh#t. I hate you all.

The back side of Bruce's Boulder has an excellent 5.0 route that actually has some footholds on it and is not slabby or discontinuous like so many Icicle Creek beginners routes (I once called them "moderates" but was roundly pounced upon for not using that word to connote 5.10 climbing). I've had good success with this one although the noise of the roaring creek so close below is upsetting for some children. However, in my opinion Leavenworth is not the best place for young children because the very easy climbs tend to be low angle slabs and scrambles. The Summit Wall at Mt. Erie is pobably about as good as it gets within an easy radius of Seattle and it offers great picnicing that will be enjoyed by your little darling and also by mom. I have not been to the bolted slab at the Far Side noted above, but there are a couple of climbs right next to the near end of the trestle at Exit 38 - "Write Off Rock?" - that are pretty good. At least one will be easy enough for your 4-year-old, and kids always seem to like the trestle itself.

I understand the desire to cut off those long “cherry stem” roads that penetrate deep into the core wilderness that is the North Cascades. I think that expanding areas that are managed as wilderness areas is generally a good idea even though I don’t support all of the management priorities and practices that are associated with a formal Wilderness designation and I am not sure that I am in favor of the Wild Sky Wilderness designation - the first time I have had such misgivings in my life. I think that Fairweather is probably right about the aggressive preservationist agenda of groups like the North Cascades Conservation Council. A large number of conservation people are really against virtually all recreational access and see even hiking trails as such a threat to the natural world that they would have them eliminated from large areas of the North Cascades. Many would eliminate virtually all human presence from large areas, and I remember at least one person or group urging that even backcountry skiing around Mazama should be banned from large areas because the presence of humans during the winter disturbed a species of mink or something - I find it very hard to believe that the small penetration associated with backcountry skiing in the NE cascades is really an issue. It is true that the Cascade River Road and the Stehekin Road nearly bisect the park and I am sure this is a large reason why some groups might be against restoring the Stehekin Road. However, these are really the only two roads that penetrate the park, and one of them is one of two places where Joe Tourist can see the glaciated heart of the range from their car: Cascade Pass trailhead and Artist Point, at the Mount Baker ski area. I agree with those who say that the public must have access to our parks or they will not support them. The North Cascades may be the only park where I would say this, but I think that increased public access would be a good thing for the long term management of this park. Given the vast amount of wilderness to the north and south of the Stehekin road, I don’t really think that it endangers the integrity of the whole. I agree with those who say that, were the road repaired or replaced, the increased or restored public access would not generate a lot of traffic. It would, however, afford a great experience for those who get to Stehekin and I think the fact that it has been there for 100 years speaks further for maintaining this road. On balance, I say keep it but in a long term management program dedicated to providing public access and recreation while maintaining the wilderness integrity of the Park (a 100 year plan), I could see how it might make sense to decommission this road and work to maintain roadway access elsewhere.

I thought it was just a conspiracy to prevent me from getting to and from work. You really think it is all about the bikes?

Is it just me, or does anybody else think that extra stoplight they added on Leary Way a block west of Fremont Avenue North really sucks? (I think "Leary" is actually called N. 36th at that point.) It was a good idea to add that new berm they installed so you can't cut accross the traffic and block everybody when you come out of the sidestreet closer to the main corner - what it is? N. 35th? - but this whole area seems a bit over-engineered to me. And does anybody know what's up with the Fremont Bridge? It has looked just about done for a month now.

Depending on the situation, it may be MORE important to anchor a belayer when they are standing away from the base of the route. I once caught a fairly hard fall with my buddy low on the route, and I was pulled eight feet to the base of the route while he correspondingly fell an extra eight feet and started worrying he might hit the ground. In this particualr instance, it would have been much better had I been standing, unanchored, at the base of the climb. You need to look at every situation with an eye toward a variety of factors. Factors include where the belayer should sit, whether there is a chance of pulling your belyer out of position as like whether there may be steep climbing at the start of the pitch or the leader is heavier than the belayer or maybe the belay is located horizontal from the expected direction of pull, and whether the belayer is standing on the ground or not.

When the snow is gone, there used to be a path that headed up onto that ridge accross the bowl from the Tooth, but now that the other approach has become such a trail, this path may be fading away.

Rubber Soul started near where the original Silent Running started, but left of the long bushy seam that divides the North Buttress of Three O'Clock into two roughly equal halves. It climbed diagonally leftward, joing what is now Total Soul about 30 feet up the third pitch. It exited stage right about 20 feet up the fifth pitch. I don't think it is still there, but we used to have an old belay / rappel anchor from Total Soul hanging in Pro Mountain Sports. It was a 20" tree about the diameter of your thumb that grew in that crack on Total Soul's fouth pitch. It was not a "SRENE" anchor. Because of the bolts, Silent Running got done fairly often. Rubber Soul was less popular.

The original Silent Running route started approximately 150 feet up and left of the present start, with some mungy slab leading to a bolted belay, then it passed an overlap before traversing right to what is now the second belay. This overlap and traverse pitch must be the first of the two sustained pitches Mark remebers, but it was substantially easier than the present crux pitch and Dave Whitelaw has the moves above the overlap rated 5.8+ in his guidebooks and it has now become part of a route called "Revolver," which was established proabably some time mid 1980's or maybe 1990? There is an old route to the right of Silent Running, one that has never been published as far as I know, and one of cc.com's esteemed old guard had a hand in its creation. I think this one was monkeyed with by a couple different parties at some point. I believe the new start of Silent Running is vastly preferable, though I bet you could still follow the original line. There may still be one of the original bolts left in place on the traverse. There was a variety of hardware, with some of the old "beer can" hangers that resembled a pull top, with the tab bolted to the rock and the ring raised at maybe a 60 degree angle. In addition, there were what we used to call the meat hooks. They were 2" long sections cut from metal stock about like that used for making a snow picket. There was no rounding to the corners, and the thought of falling and sliding over one was quite frightening.

Most of the easier climbs at Darrington have bolts in funny places if you ask me, Shapp, and some of the harder ones too. Was they guy thinking about the runout, on a 5.4 "hands free" slab? Or did he hang on some funky sky hook when he drilled? Did the route setters disagree about where they were going? Etc. I guess that is true elsewhere, too, as I often wonder about the bolt placements on climbs at just about any climbing area. Though maybe not perfect, I thought that rib starting the second pitch of Big Tree was an improvement over the bushy corner to the left and I never found cause for discomfort there although I suppose it could have taken another bolt at the start. (Beyond horror, there is no bolted belay anchor there either.) I guess you could still stay "trad" and climb the bushy corner if you would prefer. I think Big Tree (the left hand one we are talking about) and the first pitch of Cornucopia are fairly good beginner leads with pro easy to find but a rack is needed. Some people get confused about where to go higher on the Big Tree route, though - generally where the route heads right onto an upper slab that is out of view. If I remember correctly, there is an old bolt and grassy seam straight up at that point - maybe the bolt oughtta go.

Mr. Dick: whyare you so threatened by such a discussion? If, as you say, there is nothing new here? (And I believe you are correct about this point.) You can watch a different channel. Pope: in deference to Mr. Dick, I give up. If you can't see why you are full of crap here based on information already exchanged, I'm certainly not going to make any further progress. And I say this even though I more or less AGREE with you that \the particular set of anchors in question was rather silly. If you want to discuss where or under what conditions bolted anchors might be appropriate, I think it could be a worthy discussion - if it was more than the Matt 'n Pope show that Mr. Dick is so unhappy about.

Nobody has cleaned up Big Tree to my knowledge.

I'm not sure about any rappel route to the climbers left of Dreamer. Because Dreamer often has other parties on it and because of rope eaters on the Blue Crack pitch and on that pitch where Giants Tears joins lower down, I generally rappel Safe Sex instead of Dreamer. SS has one rap right over a cedar, but I have not yet had any real problem with the offending bush. There is said to be a better descent that involves perhaps as few as two rappels down a completely different line north of The Fast Lane. I'd be game to check this out some day. The "walk off" is not recommended.

I heard through the grapevine that there was still snow on the Blueberry Terrace as recently as last weekend, and if so the last pitch of the West Butt, Dark Rhythm, Rainman, and Jacob's Ladder will be slimy (the last pitches below that terrace, that is). Of these, Jacob's Ladder takes the most straight-forward line for a descent so it might make the better "crag climb" right now, but Rainman makes an OK rap and if you switch from Dark Rhythm over to the West Butt at the "flange" pitch, that one is OK. W.Butt routes Jacob's Ladder The West Buttress route is a combination of slabs and lieback flakes, Dark Rhythm is mostly slab, Rainman includes some crimpy edge climbing and even a true crack, and Jacob's Ladder is a bit steeper with some crimpy edges and odd dike features for four of the eight pitches.

With the support of the North Face and the Access Fund, the WTA did several work projects on that trail, too. The trail really needs to be moved out of the eroded trailbed, but the rangers don't want us to do it because they'd have to undertake environmental review. Thus, frequent trailwork is needed and it remains an ankle breaker. With our expressed interest, though, the Eight Mile Creek trail has bumped up a bit on their list of priorities and the Forest Service even sent their own trail contractor up there two years ago. This and a telephone campaign a few years back has kept the Darrington area open to climbers. The trail and the road serving it would have been "let go" without the efforts of climbers who decided to get involved.

WTA: Overall, we could find fault with this or that stance the WTA has taken, and it may be true that they tend to concentrate their efforts fairly close to the trailhead and on trails that are already in fairly good shape. Is that true? I'm not sure. However, I think the WTA has been a real player in working with the Forest Service toward a reduced emphasis on resource management driven by logging activity and a greater emphasis on recreational access as part of a more balanced land management orientation. Middle Fork: There is plenty of room for disappointment over "the plan" in the Middle Fork, but at the heart of it I think that climbers have only ourselves to blame for any poor outcome that we may find there. There was an extensive public discussion that took place for ten years and the rangers and conservation group people I have talked to said that climbers were more or less absent from the process. The climbers I know who were on the mailing lists and invited to participate have said that they were too busy with other matters and didn't perceive an urgent need to get involved. Even if you were not the recipient of any targeted mailing there was plenty of opportunity to get involved. The kayak groups participated in the process and they have had their traditional put in spots protected. Horse riders and mountain bikers were active as well, and they are being provided for.

When I first read Jon's post, I thought: say what? I don't think it is typical for rural residents of a poor country like, say, Nepal, to express a strong desire not to modernize or cultivate a higher standard of living. There are plenty of examples of places where some groups or communities have sought to protect themselves from some real or potential ill effect of modern cultural or economic invasion, though, and perhaps this is what Jon was referring to. In reading some of the discussion here I am reminded of a story I heard in Nepal some years ago. There, a western charity sought to do something about deforestation and lung disease in a Himalayan valley and equipped an entire village with highly efficient wood stoves that vented the smoke outside the homes instead of the open unventilated hearths that were commonly used. When they came back, two years later, they found all the new stoves in a pile outside of town and the metal was being salvaged for other uses. Upon inquiry, it was learned that the roofs of all the houses where these stoves had been installed were quickly being devoured by bugs: the smoke infused environment had been serving as pest control. With food aid or any other intervention undertaken even with the best of intentions it can be difficult to anticipate the impact of this or that development assistance.

Silver Star might be a good choice. There's no glacier and it is subalpine, but you could certainly find some good places for ice axe practice on Rock Mountain (Nason Ridge) and it is easy to get to. For the west side, Sloan is a good one and the NW side of Del Campo is good just as soon as the Sunrise Road opens (or maybe before).

I agree with the sentiment, but there is a variety of situations at different crags, Mr. K. I wouldn't say that everywhere in Western Washington would be or was unclimbable without intensive cleaning - many of the climbs at Darrington or Mount Erie, for example, were established with relatively little cleaning, and then there are all the great climbs on the higher peaks that were established with virtually none. But in a very real way the amount of engineering and alteration of the natural environment that went into Japanese Gardens was far greater than that associated with some bolted pillar at Vantage. Paradoxically, I'd venture a guess that an aid ascent of Japanese Gardens - an ascent following in the tradition of the first ascent - might even be safer and in many respects less "daring" than an ascent of same pillar at Vantage, where the holds you stand on and the bolt you clip to are likely to fail due to poor rock quality! I haven't done JG, though, so maybe there is some sketchy aid far from pro involved in an aid ascent --- but I doubt it. And what of a free ascent - is there any difficult gear placement involved? Provided you bring a huge rack and are strong enough to use it, even a free ascent might actually be safer than some randome climb at Vantage! Admittedly, a comparison of Japanese Gardens with some bolted arete at Vantage is of limited usefulness, but my point is that things are not always one dimensional and an exclusive or overactive focus on bolts, or any other aspect of climbing for that matter, clouds our vision of the sport.

In the case of Japanese Gardens, Pope, I think you are dead wrong where you write that "cleaning cracks and clearing a little loose rock do not impose the degree of engineering and the obvious evidence of human impact that bolts do." I have talked to the FA and he said they named it "Japanese Gardens" for a reason. Thirty five years have passed, and clean corners and cracks look "natural" now, but when it was first climbed the degree of engineering, and the resulting impact was far greater than the subsequent drilling of even a dozen bolt holes now. As I stated in my first post to this thread, I always thought it was vaguely silly to have anchors in that location. I think I may understand why the recent installation of chains was seen by somebody as "too much," but if we are going to talk about "impact," lets look at the whole and not just the holes.

If nobody else steps up to the plate, let me know. We might be able to set you up with your own toilet. We live a long way from Harbor Island, though, and I haven't checked with my wife. Not only that, but we might be housing family members for a while, so we may not even have extra floor space. But anyway, we're thinking of you (she would be if I told her a fellow cc.comer'er was in need, cause she's way sweet -- even if she thinks I waste too much time on this site). Homeless in Seattle es no bueno....

The Alpine Lakes Wilderness lies entirely south of Highway 2, but there has been plenty of discussion of Index and Baring in that forum. Darrington probably lies outside the "greater Alpine Lakes" region.