mattp

I'm with you there, Drederek, and I'm largely with Wastral, too. I grew up when we walked uphill in the snow to get to climbing areas and climbers and climbers instructional organizations are very risk averse these days. When I see people posting about learning to lead rock pitches by pretending to lead those pitches while climbing on a top rope I just scratch my head. (I realize that many people think this is a good way to teach leading but I think the beginning climber would learn better by following a bunch of climbs and then simply leading. I also understand that there are other approaches toward instruction and I understand why some would think that a rehearsal of placement and clipping is a good idea.) But to suggest that climbs up to class 4 are good for beginners or that solo climbers are not likely to find theirselves on top of a volcano in a white-out is just plain incorrect, in my view. Camping with a tarp instead of tent? Wastral gets my thumbs up. Pushing the limits of what he can expect to climb in a day so he may end up "sleeping" on a mountainside somewhere? Thumbs up again. Deliberately leaving behind the 7.5 minute map that may provide detail that would make his trip easier? Another thumbs up.

Nice one, Off. Washington's best climbing areas may be Smith Rocks and Squamish, but there are a lot of great climbing areas in Washington!

I "alerted" on that one, too, Fairweather. But I remember having similar thoughts when I moved here from the midwest, where it is far easier to simply get turned around in the woods because there are not big obvious features like mountain ridges and valleys. I said things like that statement that Wastral offered, once upon a time. Yes, plenty of experienced climbers who I think were in fact paying attention to where they were going have managed to get sucked down into the wrong drainage for one reason or another. My guess is that Wastral would acknowledge that this could happen, without the "victim" being "oblivious to the world." And, in the case of some of the volcano's in particular, it would be easy for our lost soul to have little idea of what drainage they ended up in.

Consider taking comfortable fitting rock shoes and climbing right back down the route. No hassle. No complications. No big pack. Seriously.

That's a fair suggestion, Bird Dog, and one that would be supported by most "experts." But I'd argue otherwise. There is a lot to be found in climbing solo. And by that I mean not just a scare factor or adrenaline or bragging rights, but a personal experience that can have broader value. A "Solo" climb on a walk up peak in the wilderness, while certainly exposing the climber to danger, is no more unreasonable than a roped and partnered climb on something even moderately technical.

I added my suggestion already. Climb it in April, with maximum snow cover, and climb it when there has been a prolonged dry spell and the temperatures are cool. You'll be able to climb right up the thing without screwing around in harms way and you'll probably be able to face out and walk down Liberty Ridge, right back to camp.

"up to BUT not including class 4" is what he apparently meant. In other words, "up to class 3."

I'm sorry to have offended you, Wastral. I indicated that already and I tried to suggest both respect and admiration for what I perceived to be your idea that adventure and aspiration are strong points or something like that. But once again I disagree. I could be mistaken but I believe that class 3 is not or has not traditionally been defined to mean "if you fall you survive." I believe it has traditionally been defined to mean that some, but not all climbers, will want to be roped up. There are definitely some class III climbs where a fall could result in death. I don't know, but I think a rather well known and experienced local climber may have been killed on a class 3 climb last year (it could have been class 4). And, I can't believe your argument. "Up to Class 4" means "not class 4 but only class 3 or below" -- and I have a reading comprehension problem? Really? I'm not trying to be an ass here. I simply disagree. And the heart of my point is that I would not rely on a given rating of "class 3" or "class 4" in the Beckey book or some guide to the Coast Range or Rockies and conclude, without further thought about the nature of the route, that it was a good solo climb for beginners or even intermediate climbers.

Wastral, are you for real? There are a lot of very serious "class 4" climbs out there where I, for one, would think a beginner would have no businesss climbing. With that kind of attitude, even if you are not a "beginner," you're going to get spanked - as I have when I blithely thought "class 4 means easy." I'm not kidding: I hope you or somebody reading your post and encouraged to do something crazy doesn't get killed. I know I sound like rain on your parade, and I'm sorry. I admire anybody who is enthusiastic and I think confidence to think beyond the sometimes-promoted baby steps is a good thing. But be careful. Study up on your objectives and don't assume that Class 4 is not dangerous or doesn't need a partner.

Some of that sketchy looking stuff turns out to be very strong but even the best looking hardware fails 1 out of X times. Last time I went up there I found a fallen tree lying on the route that threatened to break a leg even if the bolts held. I guess this particular hazard is gone.

Bolt replacement can be easy or hard. You never know for sure until you try to pull the offending piece of hardware. I don't remember but the age suggests these might be 5/16 button-heads or other hardware that are probably larger than 1/4. If they are 1/4, they would probably be relatively easy to remove and replace. If larger, maybe not (some 3/8" gear is VERY easy to pull).

Wow! Nice one, Mark! I might have to try this.

Years ago, I used to like that climb (Lamar's Trust). It is sad that it has fallen into disrepair.

Siam, I had my gear stolen several years ago too. I had been on a long weekend trip where we were not sure about our agenda and I had full rock cragging rack, some alpine gear, and big wall gear in the truck. Sunday night I went to dinner in Pioneer Square and got hit. The stuff never showed up on bulletin boards or at Second Ascent. I bet it ended up in a dumpster. I was able to cash in on the insurance, though. I had been working as a climbing instructor and had kept all my receipts so I could show exactly what I had bought in the prior couple of years. I presented a detailed list of the lost items. With deductible and depreciation I ended up spending a not insignificant amount of money to replace my gear, but I also ended up with a whole new bunch of gear. Check out your insurance coverage. Ask about both your car policy and any renters or homeowners insurance you may have. I know those guys usually suck but they might just come through.

Fairaweather: Do the State agencies seek to punish the taxpayers? Really? Or is it more the case that the voters seek to punish the State agencies? (And could it be that you, one of those voters, wants your preferred program or programs spared from the axe?)

Nice one, KK. I saw that same "hippy drummer" in Seattle three weeks ago and was very impressed. He plays regularly. See you there? White Rabbit, Fremont. Mondays.

KK: did you vote for taxes in the last election? You remember: the one where income taxes and candy taxes were at issue? Yes, I realize that we all pay taxes. The plain fact is that we also all know that State revenues are way down due to the economic slump. And costs of operation are going up. We can argue (in Jay's spray thread) whether public benefits or public employee's unions are the "problem." But the State budget is being cut - as regards all departments from law enforcement to public assistance, public employee compensation, and, yes, public lands. These cuts are hitting everybody. How SHOULD the State pay for your hobby?

Bill, Your post asked what the last 50 years of Washington government spending per person looked like. I have no clue. You are in just as good of a position to research this as I am. You linked a website that had a lot of information, I'm sure, but what is the message? Is there a good idea about how to fund the operation of public lands - other than taxes or user fees? Or closure?

Bill and Fairweather, This thread is about how user fees for using public lands are anathema and I get it: I hate user fees. I think public lands should be free. But your arguments against the fees for access to public lands revolve around the idea that you think State government is wasteful. I have some sympathy for this idea (and I work for State government), but I don't see any suggestions how else we should fund the operation and maintenance of public lands. Ideas?

I hate the whole idea of user fees for public lands, because I think public means "Public" -- or at least it should. But I still don't see a lot of discussion here about what may be the alternatives. Close all of them? Pay taxes? Something else besides user fees? We can argue about whether public employees' unions are a good idea in another thread, perhaps, but here it seems relevant to note that the Discover Pass is a raw deal but I'll buy one and I wonder: do those of you who talk about how the government will only waste the money have another idea how to fund public lands management and maintenance? To borrow a phrase from another political context: freedom isn't free. Public freedom to enjoy public lands actually costs money.

Wow! That's awesome!

Interesting, Sol. I have recently been using the Mastercams quite a bit and found them to feel more solid than either Aliens or TCU's - both of which I have used a LOT over the years.

Well Ok then. Meat now, vegetables later. But in terms of coolness, and excitement, you oughtta talk your guide into taking you up the North Face of Shuksan. It is not a beginners' climb, but it is not hard in a technical sense. And it is WAY cool.

OK, but you guys suck for not choosing the little guy. (Not really - I'm pretty sure you will like Mt. Baker. It is spectacular!)

If most of your group is inexperienced and wants a "one-time" experience, I think I'd recommend Baker over Shuksan. It is a straight forward climb with no fooling around in the bushes and it will place you on top of a major landmark that if they are from the NW they will see on a regular basis (assuming all goes well). Baker is also a better preparation for Rainier in terms of the overall environment. You will probably camp on snow and there is a large amount of glacier travel involved. Shuksan, however, is a very cool mountain. It is very beautiful and, yes, the White Salmon is actually more challenging than the Coleman Demming on Baker. It will also provide a little more of a wilderness experience.