mattp

if I remember right, there are some old pitons in that seam nearby, and there were once some slings on bushes in the corners above, but I don't think there is much else that anyone would call a route beyond that point -- though in the old guidebook I think the route is shown as going on for a few more pitches up and right.

I climbed the headwall in January or February 1978, the day of what I believe was probably the first winter ascent of the route -- but so did at least two other parties ahead of us the same day. There had been a rainstorm to the summit the week before, followed by clear cold weather. Everyone got the same idea at the same time and there was quite a party in the Kulshan Cabin the night before. The FWA was made by at least eight people.

Yes, it is tongue in cheek humor, Catbird, but there is also some reality to it. The "sub-message" is that the guide needs to guard against the worst possible mistake or inattention on the part of their client - that is their job. Also, guides can get complacent about their own safety, scrambling up and down cliffs to set fixed ropes or neglecting to anchor themself or sit in a safe place, out of the way of rockfall, when they are using the rope to hasten their client along or whatever, and "humor" like this is intended to convey the idea that what you may do on your day off, with your friends, can be VERY dangerous and completely inappropriate when "on the job."

Yes, in a way, the bio-zones are similar. Rainstorms sweep accross from the west accross open water and the mountains form a similar barrier, with rainforest at the foot of glaciated peaks, and bare or semi-bare valleys in the lee of the New Zealand Alps. The west coast is as wet as the Olympic Penninsula, the mountains wet and snowy all year around kind of like southeast Alaska, there is an area like the Chilcotin Plateau on the east slope, and along the east coast it feels like California or something. It has more variety and probably more extremes than we have (though I'm not sure there is any true desert), and the mountains don't get the same dry season that we have, but in many ways it does "feel like home," However, as mountains the New Zealand Alps are more like those in southeast Alaska than anything in Washington. Mount Cook stands nearly 10,000 feet above a 25-mile long glacier immediately below. The climb, from the glacier (most parties fly to a hut half way up) is kind of like climbing Mount Johannesburg, in the Spring, ON TOP of climbing some other major cascade peak. And the glaciers there are, like Alaska glaciers, something to worry about. Crevasse falls are common.

However, the link-up I described would not, properly speaking, be "The Kone." Catbird Trog may have just made the first "winter" ascent. Another one for the record-books.

For The Kone, I think a better alternative is to climb the first three (short) pitches of "Till Broad Daylight, then switch to The Kone just before the long leftward traverse on the fourth pitch. This provides more varied climbing, and what I think is probably the best 5.8 pitch in Darrington. It often has a drip in the middle of what is shown on the topo's as pitch 2, but rarely is this a problem.

The White Salmon is overall probably a less serious ski descent than the SW Chutes. It is a glacier, and there are some crevasses, but the danger from an unchecked fall down the Chutes is probably greater than the danger of a crevasse fall on the White Salmon (I've done both). The South Spur (the standard or "south route") is quite steep for the upper several hundred feet below the false summit. You've got big plans for a first backcountry ski trip. Have fun!

Bring a mountain bike.

Reading this thread, I get the impression that everyone assume that greater snow cover will always mean less rock fall. I don't think this is quite right; in my experience the rocks start to roll when things are warming or when the sun hits a slope or when a slope goes into shade or when it rains or whenever a climber kicks them. Comparing my mid-summer experience to all of the reports from those who climb the route in May or June, I think there was actually LESS rockfall when I did the climb than most early season parties report. The difference may be that, when I climbed it, the weather had been stable for several weeks and this tends not to be the case in May.

In terms of spectacular alpine climbing, there is no place in the 48 states that comes close. In terms of mountaineering fatalities, I bet Mount Rainier comes close.

The road to the Static Point "trailhead" was open to within a quarter mile of the end as of three weeks ago: As of two weeks ago, the road up Clear Creek, for Darrington/ExfoDome/Green Giant, etc. had been fully repaird from this winter's washouts but was blocked by a large pier block several miles short of the crags. Two months ago, it looked like this up there:

A "good argument" can be made about all kinds of things, Peter. But I am not following you here: are you suggesting that I think wilderness areas might be privatized? What aspect of wilderness areas would that be? I agree with you that there is a lot of formally designated Wilderness in Washington - and in fact I think in this very thread I've referred to a vast stretch of wild lands, much of it either Wilderness or National Park, which stretches form I-90 to the Canadian border and I impliedly if not directly asked what this additional one would add to any important preservation or conservation goal and how such an addition would compare to the recreational or other values that might be lost as a result of such designation.

Budget constraints do appear to contribute to some apparently "conservation" minded management policies with respect to such matters as adopting no-trail policies or letting old roads fade away into the bush, and may even weigh in favor of the Wild Sky Wilderness, but I don't think an underfunded Forest Service benefits any long-term preservation or conservation interest. A lack of money also means that they have less of a budget for overall resource management and fewer resources to employ in the oversight of ongoing permitted uses. It is also being used as an excuse to promote privatization which will almost certainly tend to benefit industry groups and private business over any public-interest conservation or stewardship agenda. The vendors or contractors or leaseholders are in it to maximize profits, and apart from any requirements imposed on them by the Forest Service, and enforced through active scrutiny and policing, there is little incentive to look ahead toward any long-term conservation agenda.

Virtually every post in support of this proposed Wilderness is founded on the sole premise that the area is threatened with some unknown horror of logging, development, or mining in a manner that only Wilderness designation can prevent, or that such a designation is our best hope for preventing such threat. Again, I ask: does anybody here know what real threats may exist? Yes, I know that Bush and his buddies want to rape the earth and they'll probably kill your cat while they are at it. I hate those guys. But I have seen logging decreasing, and little or no mining, road building, or development take place on the Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest for a number of years now. Nobody here is addressing what REAL prospects there are that the areas in question may be subject to such threats or specifically what parts of the proposed new Wilderness may be threatened. In addition, we aren't talking about how the Northwest Forest Plan, fish habitat rules, roadless area regulations, or other laws and management programs may serve much of the protective purpose we seek, adn I don't think we really know how the area would be managed for recreational use as opposed to resource extraction with or without wilderness designation. I'm for preservation. I support wilderness area designations. I have not made up my mind on this one but so far nobody has said much that convinces me the Wild Sky Wildereness is a good idea.

I'd be hesitant to suggest Ptarmigan Ridge as a route less prone to rockfall, because my friends who have climbed the Ptarmigan have all come back with stories of serious rock dodging. But I have only done Liberty (in late july on a medium snowfall year) and I've never been up Ptarmigan. I bet there will be enough snow on the Liberty Ridge to make it doable in May if the weather and surface conditions are good.

Mary Lou is right. There are lots of lowland valley bottoms set aside already. That part of the North Fork of the Sky and other creeks in the proposed wilderness start at about 1500 feet. Just looking at my handy dandy Washington Gazeteer for about ten minutes, I see that on the West slope of the North Cascades, North of I-90, the following low elevation river and creek bottoms are included in wilderness areas: -Sunday Creek and part of the upper Snoqualmie River headwaters (from approximately 1500 feet on up) -East Fork of the Foss River (approximately 1700 feet on up) -Cadet Creek, starting at about 1700 feet or so -Boulder River (1200 feet on up) -North Fork Sauk River, starting at about 2,000 feet -Suiattle River, starting at about 1500 feet -Downey Creek, starting at about 1500 feet -Sulphur Creek, starting at about 1500 feet -Buck Creek, starting at about 1500 feet -Kindy Creek, starting at about 1500 feet -South Fork, Cascade River, starting at about 1500 feet -Various creeks around Mount Baker, starting at about 1500 feet and I think just about every creek draining the Picketts area is in the National Park, and these include: -the Baker River, starting at about 1000 feet, -Noisy Creek, starting at about 1500 feet -Bacon Creek, starting at about 1,000 feet, -Goodell Creek, starting at about 1,000 feet, -Stetattle Creek, starting at about 1,000 feet, -Big and Little Beaver Creeks, starting at about 1,000 feet, -the Chilliwack River, starting at about 1,000 feet -Silesia Creek, starting at about 1800 feet, ...and more. If you look at the website of the Washington Wilderness Coalition, promoting the proposal, they talk about unique lowland forests lying in the proposed new wilderness. I am not so sure about this. Does anybody know what threats the area may face with or without Wilderness designation?

Does anybody around here actually know very much about this proposal? How is this area unique or not unique, as compared to the rest of the wildlands stretching from I-90 to the Canadian border and beyond? What kinds of recreational activities take place there now, and would take place in the future with or without Wilderness designation? What is the prospect for significant timber harvest or mining or development or other significant destruction of this area if it is not designated Wilderness? I've virtually ALWAYS been in favor of Wilderness designations, but here I am not so sure.

I think you mean: Ballard Grill & Alehouse 4300 Leary Way NW It's accross the street from Hale's Brewery. The Ballard Alehouse is a different place.

Flash, You are off to a good start by beginning your efforts with an inquiry here before you head out to Index to start your service project. If you have not already, pursue similar discussion elsewhere, too, because cc.com does not necessarily represent all Index climbers. Also, as you gather opinions of the FA's of any route in question, I am sure you will find (or may already have found) that at least in some cases their opinions may not "square" with those of many current climbers in the area. It sounds as if you plan to err on the side of caution. That is a good idea. Especially with regard long established routes in a popular climbing area, many climbers have strong opinions and a sense of ownership whether they were involved in the first ascent or not. That first bolt on the second pitch of City Park is a good example: the climb is such a popular one that many climbers have extremely strong feelings about it and you will find strong opinons about moving/upgrading/chopping/doing nothing. The same is probably true of that pin on GM. Good luck!

In the case of the Verdon, and the Calanques, we're talking about southeastern France. But there's plenty of great climbing in the Massif Central and in the Pyrenees there are some huge rock climbs. Also, as mentioned already, there are smaller crags all over the place. About ten years ago, I spent a few weeks near Carcasonne, in southwestern France, and we rented a real cool 17th century house in a 10th century village for a week or two. Damn if there wasn't a limestone climbing area out behind an old monestary right on the edge of town! I knew nothing of it until we got there. If you play your cards right, you ought to be able to combine pleasure with business. I took my girlfriend, who is now my wife, to the Verdon and I hopped on somebody's rope for a pitch or two and then we drove accross the valley to find a cool looking hill town that we saw from the top of the crag. When we got there we found, on the pinnacle above the town, an old unmarked ruin of a castle which made a spectactular picnic spot.

I think the Verdon Gorge is probably the most fun cragging I've ever done. Nearly all the climbs are accessed from the top and you drop onto big air right off the get-go. The Scenery is fantastic and, while it is high enought that October could be cold, it was too hot when I was last there in September, about ten years ago. Here's a picture of my partner, Gerhardt, shot from the tourist viewpoint at the top.

Yes, you want a little bit of edge showing - but ideally no more than 1/4" or so. Any more than this and you will be slipping all over the place when you try to diagonal up a frozen snow surface.

Time's a'waistin'.

With shaped skis, you will have a problem doing anything but skinning straight uphill on a hard pack or, worse, an icy snow surface -- unless you have custom trimmed skins that fit the entire ski. However, you'll be able to live with it unless you are out with a bunch of guys who DO have the correct fitted skins. Do your bindings accept ski crampons? I've never used them, but I bet they'd be just the thing for an icy snow surface.

One other bit of advice: if you are loosening a boot to reduce shin or calf bruising, do not simply loosen up all the laces on your boot or you will run the risk of having your heel lift up and down, causing blistering. Keep the buckles or laces around the bottom of your ankle fairly tight. For some boots, I have tied the laces here with a square knot, then laced on up to the top as a separate "unit" so I could adjust the tightness up top without loosening the boot around the foot. If you know how to "break" a square knot and if your laces are freindly, it is not hard to untie after you've done this.