mattp

I'm pretty sure he WAS having fun. You would too, climbing those peaks (maybe not Assassin)

The Washington Climbers Coalition, with the help of a grant from the Frenchman Coulee Climbers Coalition, is providing a porta potty for the fall season 2011. We seek a more permanent solution.

Jay, I'm a fan of Mt Adams but I think Glacier is a better tick. In the heart of the North Cascades, and far more remote, it is a very cool peak. I'm not taking away from Mt. Adams, though. I climbed the NW Ridge in October once and thought it a fantastic climb.

Say what? Last I looked we bailed out the banks (PRIVATE SECTOR) and the automobile manufacturers (also PRIVATE SECTOR) and we continue to cut the pay and benefits of PUBLIC SECTOR employees.

Don't forget, the mostly private interest financial organizations who gained de-regulation and tanked our economy.

Thank god I never had to endure the nut crusher. I hope I didn't sound to anyone like I discounted the significance of modern climbs or modern climbers because I did not mean to do so. I still climb, though not as much as I would like. Anybody who can truly get after it merits my respect, as do those who are simply casual climbers like myself. Climbing rocks.

Yeah, you post about August air but it is nearly October. So what is new? You don't wear a swami belt I bet, but what about Easter Overhang? Do you take mass cams or simply run it out from the old pin? Is it still a worthy objective, or simply a walk down memory lane?

Dane, In some regards this may be fun stuff primarily to those interested in our generation or the history of modern climbing. I think that in years prior to our "golden age" climbers did not fall (or if they did, they got hurt). In 1960 or so (give or take 20 years depending on your perspective), we began to develop techniques that made it "safe" to fall. Whether you think this was with roped climbing (maybe as early as the 1920's) or cams an bolt-intensive climbing (1980's and I know Jardine had cams in Yosemite a few years earlier), rock climbing took leaps forward when climbers learned to climb all kinds of cool stuff without mortal fear of falling. Our sport is very different than that which our pioneers practiced and kids these days can climb circles around you and I yet the "cool" climbs of our younger times, such as the Nose and the N. Face of the Grand or the N. Face of Robson (now a ski route), are still a pretty big deal. Cool, eh?

Dane: you suggest that they wore swami belts in 1967. In 1967 was it a swami belt or a bowline on a coil? I remember the swami belt coming into use (where I noticed it, at least) a few years later. Swami belt harnesses were not something I associate with climbing in 1967. I was not climbing in Yosemite or Leavenworth at the time but I think swami belts were popular in Yosemite maybe five years after that (I don't remember the exact time frame) and eventually we used seat belt webbing to sew our own harnesses. This may have been nearly ten years after 1967, though. In between 1967 and whenever it was that we all used sewn harnesses I remember climbers all using tied harnesses. "Diapers" may have been in use in 1967, but I'm not so sure about that, through for sure by 1971.

It doesn't belong on this list but the easiest route up Exfoliation Dome in Darrington has roughly 6 pitches of belayed climbing and ten feet of 5.8 or so. And this is an obscure route not described anywhere and almost never climbed. The "standard" route has about ten pitches of real rock climbing and is also rated 5.8 but probably has a 5.9 move.

Thanks for the ideas. Any personal references, pictures, stories, information or just fluff would be appreciated. Trees are cool. Catestrophic failure would be bad. We hope to build something cool.

That Capilano bridge looks AWESOME!

For sure, Rad. Our motivation for this project stems from our excitement about these magnificent trees that escaped logging when the area was cut 100 years ago (this one may not have been big enough to bother with). We hope to be able to take people who otherwise would not climb trees to visit the woods, not at canopy height, perhaps, but not from the ground. The bridge will travel past a big leafed maple that is moss clad and has flowers growing in it and the destination level in our primary tree feels like you are up high in the forest.

Right you are, Rad. We do not think it necessary to build concrete towers and we are envisioning something a lot less involved than a true suspension bridge. But the movement and growth associated with trees presents a significant set of challenges. As I said: I've build ropes courses before. Those projects were located lower down in the trees where there was even less movement and, in some cases, we only set them up for temporary use. Based on that experience, I'm thinking that we can use technology more like that for the tree-canopy zip line experience than an automobile bridge over a river. One where I once facilitated a group challenge event was in a clearing where the modern Little Si climbing area access trail for the Woods and British Aisles forks off the Little Si trail. A friend of mine had a "ring jump" where the participants would climb about 30 or 40 feet up a tree and then they'd be asked to jump and grab a ring that was suspended in space about 6 feet away. They had a full body harness and a belay from a cable stretched above, but it was a very exciting event. The combination of a tree-house and a bridge to the ground presents some unique challenges. It'll be pretty cool if we can build it, though.

Yup, Sobo, we are planning to use the treehouse tree itself as a "backstay." The bridge we envision is not, according to the Seattle Bridge website, a "suspension bridge." We envision a "negative camber suspended bridge" or something like that. The difference is that we will not have two bridge towers and "backstay" anchors. We are looking at simply building a glorified version of a tyrolean traverse - something that is commonly called a "Burma bridge" in ropes course discussion. The target tree is pretty big. It is a 100+ year old cedar and, while there have been some sluffs nearby, we figure that it is good for another 100 years,. We are more worried about the stability of the proposed anchor trees on the bank. If we were to try to build a bridge over the ravine our span would be more like 300 feet.

111: Do you have ideas about how we might "secure" the tree without damaging it? The treehouse people are all pretty consistent about wanting to let the tree be a tree and I'm not sure swaying in the wind is necessarily an essential part of that but having anchor points on the tree where we pull in three directions to anchor it might be pretty harsh as compared to having a suspended bridge that is not stretched too tight. I have not scoped it out completely but I think that at 80 feet we are not half way up the target tree and it is in a thick forest and while I could feel it moving on a day with relatively little wind when I was last up there I don't think it moves a whole lot at that level.

Thanks, Jason. I've looked at that site and they have some of the most helpful information I've found in Google searching. DPS: our bridge won't have to carry cars. I think we can stretch some cable across the void and it'll "work" but we may have to guy it out to trees or other anchor points off to the side of mid-span in order to make it comfortable. My initial research indicates that we won't have a problem with loading, but our challenges will have more to do with the fact that trees move around in the wind and we don't want to kill the trees that we intend to use for anchors at either end. And the logistics and design of this thing are quite a challenge. I've hiked over a lot of suspension bridges and 75 feet is medium small in comparison to bridges you encounter on lots of popular hiking trails but it is still pretty big for us.

I'm working on a treehouse project where we plan to build a cabin 80 feet up a tree that is in a ravine, so that access will be via a cable-suspended bridge from the bank on the edge of the ravine. Right now I have ropes in the tree at about 100 feet and at the 80 foot level, and I have set a tyrolean traverse. I've built ropes courses in the past, and who among us hasn't built a treehouse, but our bridge span will be about 75 feet and I have no experience with something of this magnitude. Anybody here? I'd love to solicit free or even maybe paid advice.

Spend one week in Baja or on the Big Island even better. But you'll have a good vacation in Banff, most of the time.

I love this route and have probably climbed it ten times over 30 years. It is under-rated both in terms of difficulty and cool-ness, in my opinion. The "one move" 5.7 slab is at least that, and the lower sections of the route, too, are more than bargained for. But given the right encouragement, anybody can do it and the entire thing, especially if you go down to the tourist overlook afterward to bask in your glory (better not to do this before with a party that includes the uninitiated), is one of the best day-climbs around for new climbers. Or experienced climbers, for that matter. It is a very exciting summit and not hard to reach and this is one cool piece of stone. By "given the right encouragement" I'm referring to the fact that, although not technically huge, this climb is really quite a serious climb for one who might not have done a technical peak climb before. I've had more than one "epic" where the participants needed special coaching beyond and above a simple top rope. Enjoy this route, and if you are totally competent on this kind of thing take your friends and kids and spouses, but don't underestimate it. Liberty Bell is full value.

One key to survival is to avoid talking about the weather. We do more whining about the weather here in Seattle than anywhere I've ever lived. And we have the most benign weather of anywhere I've ever lived. "It's too cloudy. Waaah." Even if you work 5 days a week you can ski, boat, or climb every weekend even in the dreaded "winter" months. You don't have to shovel snow off your driveway (or roof), and the heating bills are pretty low. You want snow? Drive up to the pass and there is all you can eat (unless it is July through October). What is the problem?

Alex, I'd agree that it is "poor form" (and you might suggest irresponsible) to put a pro bolt in a location where it might not be absolutely solid. However, the standard practice and advice as developed over decades of climbing has been that one should NEVER trust a single anchor for a belay or a rappel, and I could see where someone might therefore put a protection bolt on a piece of rock that they may find to be slightly questionable but almost certainly solid. Obviously, they should consider what they think the consequences of failure of that particular block of rock might be and, at the end of the day, it would be up to the subsequent climber to make their own determination whether the rock was safe. Wouldn't you agree?

I used to find that running on lawn extensions (jogging in the city, I'd run on the lawn between sidewalk and street) with a slight variation in each foot-fall, strengthened my ankle. I would turn over an ankle every once in a while if I didn't do this, and I wouldn't have any such problem after any period (even relatively short) where I did this regularly. I can't run any more, but this might be something to try if you are a runner - once you heal to the point that you can run.

Good point there, Gene. Most people I know work more than 40 hours a week, have no significant retirement benefit, and are worried about medical expenses. All but few have seen their earnings stagnant or decrease over the last 10 years. Most have a retirement investment but that number, too (the amount held) is shrinking. And most of my friends who have advanced degrees of some kind are in no better of a boat. I don't think that most workers are doing better or even keeping even with the decline in union strength. I work for a non-union State agency and my colleagues who have worked for similar agencies that were union-represented say that the union didn't manage to extract any real entitlement or higher wages or other "fluff" that we don't enjoy except that things were better defined when it came to grievances, seniority, and performance measures. They all say "better defined." Not "entitlement defined" and none say "more generous." I don't think that state employees' unions are necessarily a bad thing.

Off topic, perhaps, but yesterday I traded e-mails with someone from the Randolph Mountain Club, which maintains huts on Mt. Adams, just down the valley from Berlin. The old classic (mouse-infested) huts I remember from my youth are gone, but it looks like they have some really great facilities. Before the snow flies it'd be worth a hike up King's Ravine or Castellated Ridge.