mattp

I don't think you'll have any problem figuring out where to go on the back side. You just drop below the cliffs and traverse. It has been literally 20 years since I've been there so my memory isn't perfect, but it seems to me it was some combination of heather and scree, but mostly scree, and there may have been a rocky ledge or two but it was basically a hike between the gullies at either end. If you take a wrong turn, that will only mean you'll head up (or down) some gully you don't like and then retreat back where you came. Photo's at Eric's Basecamp show the gullies at either end, though these are early-season photo's where everything is covered with snow. It'll be mostly scree now. I think it might be slightly easier to find your way starting at Ellinor. Here is the gully down the back side (as seen from Mt. Washington). I don't think you'll miss it. I can't remember for sure, but the narrower gully closer to "A" peak may be a little less steep than the wider one nearer the summit. I think I'd look down the wide one first, though, as it is closer to the trail where you climb up Ellinor. Before dropping into the basin, look ahead at where you think you'll want to climb back up onto the summit ridge of Washington. There really isn't much question there, as you'll run into the cliffs of the W. ridge or whatever it is if you pass your exit ramp back up to the standard route, but you may benefit from looking ahead anyway. This photo shows Washington, viewed from Ellinor: I remember the scramble back up onto the standard Mount Washington route including, like I said, sand and dirt over rock or some vaguely treacherous kind of thing like that. Don't take your inexperienced friend there for their first outing.

All good jokes aside, Rad makes a valid point. Due to media hype and also due to the fact that climbing is obviously a self indulgent and potentially dangerous activity that many people will never understand, we DO have difficulty explaining why people who will never climb anything more challenging that the steps at Safeco Field (and they want an elevator for that) should pay for roads serving our climbing area or support recreation planning and rescue efforts on public lands. How many of us have a hard time explaning even to our family members, who clearly see how much we treasure our climbing days, why climbing is a "good thing?" The banter on cc.com may be no worse than elsewhere on the web, perhaps, but it DOES tend toward a self-righteous discussion of how climbers are heroes and golfers or even hikers don't deserve to share the same lofty pedestal we reserve for ourselves.

Darrington is a relatively low elevation climbing area and it can get HOT on sunny summer days. If you go for Dreamer on a sunny day, you'll get FRIED because you'll be in full sun from the very start of the day untill about 4:00 p.m. Take plenty of water and bring sun-protective cloting (not just sunscreen). The same is true for Three O'Clock Rock, though the climbs there are short enough that you can climb them in the late afternoon when the sun is less intense or maybe the rock is in shade and if you start in the morning you can climb a couple of pitches and retreat to the shade if necessary. If climbing Blueberry Hill on a predicted sunny day, start very early. The sun is in full blast by noon. Sunshine is fine, but be prepared. Also, don't be discouraged by the idea that Darrington is in a wet area and marginal forecasts should be avoided. Cloudy days, when there is little or no moisture predicted, can be good days at DTOWN! (By the way, Dave's CD is AWESOME, and well worth the $. If you just want to check out Darrington for a day, you can get the information you need at my website Darrington Rock Climbing web page but if you really want to explore Darrington, I'd recommend Dave's CD. The climbs at The Comb, for example, are presented nowhere else and some of them are really really good. Dave's art and his knowledge of the area cannot be beat.)

10am - 4pm, Magnuson Park 7400 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115 Biking Hiking Climbing Camping... and more! $2 Admission All proceeds support TRIPS FOR KIDS SEATTLE bike programs for inner-city youth. For table reservations for information contact tfkseattle@yahoo.com or 206-427-3090 Tables are free, but TFK encourages a $15 donation to support their programs. Contributed by Dave Schuldt

It is not exactly a "traverse" in the sense of a ridge-line traverse, but you can easily drop to the west in a gully/dirty ramps kind of thing just down from Washington's summit, traverse high in the back basin, and ascend a broad gully leading back up to the summit bowl area just short of Ellinor's summit. It is beautiful back there and I agree that it gives a "backcountry feel." There is nothing difficult about this traverse but a few short passages of sketchy loose filth overlying somewhat steep rock.

Dru is sort of correct, but low angle rappels on blocky terrain provide ample opportunity to pull rocks on your head as you try to clear the ropes while the first person rappels. In addition, if they pile up together in heaps on intermittent ledges and you pull them down two or three times into successively lower heaps, there is great opportunity to get them tangled up. Sometimes I find it helpful to throw one rope "right" and one "left" and have two climbers simul-rappel, with each guy taking care of one rope.

Climbing is perceived as a thrill-sport based on unnecessary risk and there is certainly some truth to that perception. We can argue that the risks are not really all that great -- and you might find some insurance company analysis to back that argument up -- but I think the reason climbers are singled out as opposed to boaters or irresponsible mom's has to do with this idea that we are reckless thrill-seekers. We could argue that anybody who goes to a Mariners game and parks under the viaduct is asking to get mugged and they should pay for any police support they receive, or that mom who takes her child outside during marginal weather has similarly courted disaster, but I don't think those arguments are going to go very far.

I be you are right about that being an important factor, Jon. The searches are typically going to involve more PAID staffing in addition to just larger numbers with larger logistics expenses and the aircraft support for mountain rescue, as we have been discussing, is often not chargeable to the operation. The point is, we should be careful when asserting that "climbers cost less than hikers to rescue" or whatever. To the extent that if you read up on it that appears to be true -- fine. But you'll have to consider things like volunteer labor being actually worth something and military training exercises being significant components as well. In addition, those of us who are members of the American Alpine Club actually DO have rescue insurance and I believe that some folks HAVE been billed for their rescues or at least some portion of the cost.

I believe the reason operations involving lost hikers and hunters typically cost more than climber rescues has to do with the "search" part of search and rescue. Large numbers of people are very often involved, hence more expense.

I'm with Berdinka on the S. Buttress of Cutthroat. I know it remains a popular route, but I don't understand why.

# "Compared to hiker, hunter, skier, and other backcountry incidents, the climbing population [in 2001] fared well. According to Mike Gauthier, Chief Climbing Ranger for Mount Rainier National Park, 'As a group, mountain climbers aren't the most expensive to rescue.' It is lost hikers and hunters who have achieved this distinction." (American Alpine Clubs' Accidents in North American Mountaineering, 2002). Access Fund page I believe the Access Fund has a more specific analysis of the economic benefits of recreational rock climbing somewhere, and I'm sure there is more discusssion of rescue costs available.

I gotta say, though: BOYS WILL BE BOYS. Indignation about how some irresponsible teenagers might possibly upset some innocent bystanders (though they didn't fool me) is, while perhaps justified, maybe a tad unrealistic. When I was an irresponsible youngster we once set up a dummy on a "clothes line" so we could make him run out in front of cars. Stupid and wreckless? For sure. Somebody could have been killed trying to avoid hitting our little guy. But at age 12, we thought it was pretty funny -- and when the drivers got out to check, we pelted them with snowballs. I'd have given those youngsters a good lecture, but I'd have been equally sure it wouldn't have meant much.

Spill the beans. Did anybody have fun?

It is looking more and more like we're getting confirmation that Rove did as accused. Like everything else those crooks in the Administration have been caught doing, I don't expect it to go anywhere, though. wikipedia

Did you get a partner? Mine bailed on me because of the weather and "personal reasons" (read "S.O. pressures and family type responsibilities) and I was going to go to the office tomorrow, but I could still bail and make a day of it on Saturday.

Judging by some of the recent reports here, you'll be competing with lots of other people who have the same plan. An afternoon climb might also be a way to encounter less crowds.

I have known very few parties to do the original 5th pitch in years (I assume you are talking about the pitch before the "Blue Crack" pitch); the original is much easier but runout, and thus modern climbers uniformly opt for the crack leading upward whereas, in the early days of the climb, I think most climbers instincitively followed the lower angled and heavily featured original line.

He's in the phone book you have at home.

You wanna watch? (You're right; this is unseemly. But I'll point out to be redundant once again that I never seek to take it personal. Not once have I attacked Mr. Fairweather on those grounds, and in fact I haven't ever put him down with nearly the vinegar that he has thrown in my face but there is obviously no point in attempting debate with someone who thinks I am "smarmy, dishonest, self important..." and who is going to steer the discussion to that opinion when I thought we were discussing politics. In deference to your fragile sensitivity, KJK, I'll refrain from posting my description of Fairweather's debating personality.) Have a nice evening.

I forgot what your question was two years ago, Fairweather, and I sure don't get it from what you just posted. (I don't see any inherant conflict between an appreciation for privacy and a belief in a single-payer health-care system.) However, "you didn't answer my question two years ago so I'm not going to answer yours now" sure sounds like a pathetic dodge to me. Like I said, I don't find it all that upsetting that you would use my full name because I have made no attempt to conceal my identity. However you only seem to "leak" my full name after we've exchanged a couple of argumentative posts -- in an attempt to discourage or intimidate me or something -- and you are not even denying that is what you were trying to do. I simply ask: should I return fire in the same fashion? Can we talk about the issues now? (Our discussion here need not include personal jabs.)

Is along with some idle banter about PP's odd diversion a sure sign of "almost giddyness" or is Fairweather imagining things here based upon his lack of an open mind about what I might think about this matter?

That's a picture of one of the conservative pundits, biting his fingernail while trying to figure out how to spin this one.

MSNBC Article

You got some pictures for show and tell? I got a small battlescar.