mattp

Dane, you said that you would rather cause the area closed than to see a single bolted on hold remain. We were discussing a response to the fact that bolted on holds were replaced after you removed them and no part of that discussion addressed the chipped holds (although you had earlier reported that you filled them in) or studs that were used as foot holds (I didn't even know until now that such "holds" existed). You said what you said. Eight people were listening.

Dane, you said what I reported. I made a special point of saying "let me get this straight: are you saying you would rather cause the area to be closed than to allow a single bolted on hold to remain?" You said yes. Eight people were listening. You asked if any of use were for "access at any cost," and we said we were not.

One of my first visits to a pub occurred when I was visiting the Bugaboos in 1972 or 73. On this particular trip, it was quite a party up there - the British ex-pat Calgary hardcore had taken over the place and one day the bad boys stole a chicken from the guide service and the cook got all mad so that, when it rained the next day, they figured it was time to bail out and go to town for more beer instead of hanging with her in the hut - plus, they were out of booze so there really wasn't any option. We hiked down to the cars, drove to town, drank all afternoon, and hiked back up that evening to resume the party. I was just a pup at the time, and I'd been to some rock shows and we'd had keggers and stuff but these guys really knew how to raise hell! I'd never seen anything like this! The next morning, a couple of them went out and climbed Snowpatch Spire before we even got our hungover selves out of the sleeping bag.

Sorry. I initially set the link to washoingtonclimbers. It's fixed now. You wanna be our official cc.com hyperlink tester?

You are right, Alex. The Access Fund sends out periodic "access alerts" and announcements of various meetings or work projects or discussion of issues requiring public responses appear on this site once in a while. In many cases, we don't even find out about meetings or planning projects until after they have taken place or concluded. It would be great if somebody could take on the task of trying to compile an ongoing calendar or spearhead a program of soliciting climber participation. You want the job?

Mr. K, we seem to be misunderstanding each other here. Obviously, the discussion here has focused on the bolted on holds and chipping - and I have told you "where I stand" on these issues. I believe you know where I stand on bolted cracks, too, but I suppose we could discuss that point as well. But my point is this: who cares if Mattp would be satisfied to leave ten holds or zero holds on the wall? (My own preference would be zero.) Questions right now revolve around not only past practices and current repairs, but also ongoing management. The land owner could step in and say "no more climbing," or "no more bolted on holds" or "no bolts, period." That might "resolve" it, but I believe that may not be necessary if those directly involved are able to work this out amongst themselves. I don't think there will be any successful resolution unless those involved discuss more than just whether this or that bolt or bolted on hold remains or goes. Among questions I might ask is under what circumstances are any future modifications or maintenance to take place at Dishman? Who is going to be involved in any discussion of these issues? I am not negotiating anything here - I have no direct interest in the outcome. I also don't really know all of the concerns, in part because I haven't even spoken to the "other side." The folks who have to negotiate are those involved in the conflict and any "agenda" will have to be theirs. Do you want me to prepare some kind of checklist or script for negotiations between people I have never met and never or barely ever talked to?

Over the weekend, I attended a workshop presented by Access Fund staff members and attended by local climbing activists from northern California to Vancouver, BC. The group included some climbers relatively new to the sport and others with over thirty years' active involvement. There were boulderers and mountaineers (small "m"), some who prefer "trad climbing," and others who might be thought more in the "sport" camp. We didn't agree on everything that was discussed, but it was great to interact with a group of folks dedicated to working on access issues, land manager relations, environmental issues, and other related concerns. One thing I found particularly useful was a discussion of current and recent issues in the areas represented by those present. In some cases, the best responses to these issues are obvious; in others not. However, many climbers seem unaware that some of these are even issues of significant concern. Among other things, we discussed current situations involving the following issues: 1. Development issues, such as a subdivision/golf course that swallowed up a climbing area near Bend and the proposed Squamish tram. 2. Road decommissioning is a common practice after logging operations are completed on British Columbia crown lands, and often a ready solution where police problems and other management issues cause a road to become a nuisance from the land managers' point of view on this side of the border. 3. Tribal lands and cultural conflicts, including the use of sacred sites and such public relations issues as the naming of climbs in a manner that may be offensive for cultural reasons. 4. Bouldering impacts can be more concentrated and are often more closely adjacent to other user group activities than other types of climbing. 5. Dogs cause a variety of problems at a wide variety of climbing areas. 6. Wilderness bolting and violations of other rules including permit requirements or fire regulations or raptor closures raise problems on public lands. 7. Trespassing and ignoring land-owner concerns cause problems on private lands. 8. Climber vs climber conflicts often prevent discussion and coordinated treatment of a wide variety of issues. One idea that I found quite interesting was that local climbers concerned with raptor closures can help address these issues with a volunteer monitoring program that may help the land managers to more accurately tailor raptor closures to actual nesting habits. At least in one instance, climbers were able to obtain less restrictive closures by promoting and contributing to a program that protected nesting sites during nesting season. An idea that permeated the discussion is that we, as climbers, need to be more "proactive" in building relationships within our own community and with land managers or land owners before crises develop, and in participating in ongoing management and planning discussions. This is not just double-speak or the fad of the day. You don't have to sign up for several years' of work to get involved. Check out Freeman's Peshastin Pinnacles project, posted in another thread. Kudos to those who participated at Mt. Eerie recently. Think about setting up your own project at your favorit crag. For Seattle area climbers, there is an ongoing planning process in the Middle Fork of the Snoqualmie River valley where we believe our interests have been underrepresented. In the Okanogan, Wenatchee, and Colville National Forests, there is a new recreation management plan under way. Check out the Washington Climbers Coalition or other local groups and get involved!

Mr. K- The point here is not what either Andy or I think should happen though, if you scroll up a couple of posts, you will see where Andy stated the holds you worry about should go and where I said we don't approve of bolted on or chipped holds. However, the real problem here is that a small number of the Dishman climbers have been at loggerheads. The solution to that problem lies in their being able to reach some kind of working agreement that all concerned parties can live with. Personally, I agree with your "standards" - but you and I don't climb there and probably never much will. Spokane area climbers and the land owners are going to do what they will quite apart from whatever you and I might say. Does that mean that we give it our stamp of approval if they decide to do something we don't agree with? No. But at the end of the day, the climbers who regularly visit the place as well as the land owners are the ones who will have to live with it. Any "answer" here lies in seeking a working agreement and then taking it to the land owners to show that they need not fear an ongoing crisis - any long-term solution lies in abiding by such agreements. We can't impose "our" solution on Spokane area climbers or on a Spokane property owner. It isn't going to fly.

Dane, I am not lying and I don't think I misunderstand the issues here. A relatively small conflict fed by the actions of really only four or five people has erupted into a worse crisis. I'm not saying you don't raise important issues; you do. But it has become hard to see the issues. Your statement that "the WCC and the AF are for access at any cost" and your insistence that we are protecting bolted on holds and chipping if we are not willing to actively promote your position is incorrect. We hope to encourage Spokane area climbers to resolve these issues without prolonged conflict.

As I thought I had indicated earler, nobody involved with the Access Fund or the Washington Climbers Coalition has suggested maintaining the status quo at Dishman. Quite to the contrary, we have consistently told Dane that we believe we could get a satisfactory resolution to his concerns if he would stop inflaming the issue. Two weeks ago, we held a conference telephone call involving two staff members from the Access Fund national office, the Washington Coordinator, and two of us from the Washington Climbers Coalition. In that call we repeated the same message and we specifically spoke about working to obtain removal of the offending holds - though we said we could not guarantee a particular result. Dane said he would rather cause the area to be closed than to allow a single offending hold remain. In my telephone call with Mr. Squibb that Dane reports here, I said we were not at that time ready to make a statement but that if he would tell us what they wanted, the WCC would promote whatever management policy the property owners would request us promote. We do not support chipping and bolting on holds, but I (for one) fear that Dane may only be making a bad situation worse.

Will, Nowhere in Michael's post do I see where he said it was OK to do any of the things you complain about. I believe there is much less of a "conflict" here than it seems but we are holding off on presenting the entire history because it seems that to do so would only fuel the flames here. I join Michael in asking all parties to take a big step back. Meanwhile, you can take a look at our web page at WCC Website to read a little about what the Washington Climbers Coalition is trying to do. We have not made any specific statement on this matter, but you will see all over our page that we advocate thoughful communication between the parties involved in conflicts such as this. Heated arguments that "you are either on the right side or not" will not help at this point. Those arguments have already been made.

The North Face of J-Berg is one of those routes where I'd definitely opt for a 50m rope over a 70.

ChcuK: I bought one of those once - 100m bicolor 8.8mm mammut. I thought it was going to be just the thing for Alpine climbing. As it turned out, I never used it. Even when I went for some Canadian Rockies moderate ice faces, it just didn't seem to be the right rope for one reason or another and it pretty much always stayed behind in favor of more conventional ropes. I ended up cutting off some shorter lengths for various purposes and the most commonly used segment for me has been a piece about 30m that I have used for non-technical routes where I wanted to bring some cord just in case and for some desert hikes. One definite drawback is the fact that you have much more to tangle so that when you want to make a real rope salad out of it, you can really go to town. Also, you can't split it between two packs, and it is much more of a nuisance when you start simulclimbing on barely technical terrain where you may want to shortrope it.

Back on somebody's topic. AJ's? Maybe. Anyway, even here I do not believe that for me a 70m rope would result in your argued 25% savings in pitches - nor a reduction in rapelling.

Whatever, Dru. What we probably need is the new "what is really an alpine route" forum because, to me, the crag climbs at Washington Pass are not really alpine routes. We could talk about Mount Slesse or Mount Goode, though, and I'd still be making pretty much the same argument.

Whatever, Dru. I'm not really interested in arguing the defintion of "alpine climbing." I believe most around here would consider the W. Ridge of Forbidden, N. Ridge of Baker, and Fischer Chimneys to be "alpine routes," but if you don't just revert to my first list of three climbs: Nooksack, Liberty Ridge and North Ridge of Mount Stuart. Or maybe these are not really alpine routes either? In that case, go back to Canada.

Are you suggesting that the North Ridge of Mount Baker or the Fischer Chimneys are not alpine routes? On the Fischer Chimneys, most people rope up for the glacier travel. Perhaps you would not. For those who did, a 70m or 60m rope would be no better than a 50m rope. I believe the same is true for the N. Ridge of Mount Baker. Most Cascade alpine climbs involve a lot of walking, scrambling, and other type of travel besides just climbing straight up and the advantage of linking pitches or making longer pitches is generally fairly small - and in my opinion generally offeset by the disadvantages of carrying and using the longer rope. Of the literally thousands of technical alpine climbs or non-technical alpine climbs that include some glacier travel listed in Beckey's guidebooks, I bet a longer rope would be beneficial on less than 5% of them. I acknowledged that on some alpine rock routes such as those described in NOLSe's sample trip reports, particularly those involving a fairly vertical or direct line on a multi-pitch climb, the longer ropes may be an advantage. (These are really more like cragging than what you or I would call "alpine climbs" but I didn't see it necessary to make such an observation.) The same might be true on longer ice faces or gully ice climbs that require an ongoing belay, but there are few if any of these in the Cascades.

As you note, NOLSe, it is largely a matter of style. For speed-climbing on the kind of alpine rock routes you listed, linking pitches can be advantageous. If AJ strives to climb like Mark Twight, he might want to start out with 70 mm ropes but I think that the mastery of other techniques is probably a highier priority than learning to link pitches without creating a mess. I bet if our friend Scott goes out and performs my same experiment on the West Ridge of Forbidden, the Fischer Chimney route on Shuksan, and the North Ridge of Mount Baker (a representation of three very different types of alpine climbs, but an easier selection than my first menu) he will get the same result: very few belays avoided and few if any rappels reduced. For sure he'll want to have that 60m rope if he goes after modern routes at the crags, though.

I believe that 60 m ropes are rarely an advantage in alpine climbing. Climb the North Ridge of Stuart, the Beckey route on Nooksack Tower and Liberty Ridge on Rainier - once using 50mm ropes and a second time using the 60's. My guess is that you will add no more than a handful of belay's with the 50's, you will not have added more than one or two rappels max, and you will have spent significantly less less time untangling them while also carrying 20% less rope. Admittedly, I have the 60's, though, because I worry about the once every ten days of climbing where I want the exra length. However, for me that is almost always in a cragging situation, not alpine. If you use a single rope for cragging, I'd buy a 60m single rope, and a pair of 50m doubles.

I prefer the Edelweiss Stratos, 9 mil (it might be 8.8). It is actually rated to hold a fall as a single rope over an edge (though not rated for use that way - whatever that means - I think it is something to do with the NUMBER of falls they can hold). They cost twice as much as cheap ropes, but they have a stiff handle which means they seem to tangle less than others, and they are tough. I sometimes DO use mine as a single. I agree about the 50m length except that there are increasing numbers of climbs that have been set with anchors made for '60's and I keep worrying that I will find my 50m too short. I can only remember a handful of time s where I ever really wanted the longer rope, as compared to hundreds of times where I've carried the longer rope only to be carrying extra cord. A lot of sport climbs are set for the longer ropes, though.

Scott does have a point here. Anybody who voted to authorize the use of force knew damn well that Bush was hell bent on invading Iraq and that he was going to use that authority unless Saddam completely folded. And I don't think anybody thought Saddam was going to completely fold. Yes, the Democrats suck. They have pretty much failed to set forth a clear policy and stick to it since Newt Gingrich kicked their ass. Kerry and all the others voted for the war powers because they felt backed into a corner and couldn't see a way out of it but to crumble. However, the fact remains that Bush and his buddies lied about what they were doing and Kerry's speech quoted here actually makes sense - if you took Bush and his buddies at face value. As I said, nobody could realistically have done so but, never-the-less, the Kerry fantasy here was vastly more defensible then was the Bush lie. In my opinion, fantasy visions of how things ought to be are better than flat out lies about how things are. Bush had a preconceived program and set out to deceive, but there was an outside chance that the policy endorsed by Kerry and others might actually have come to be and the idea of working nwith our allies to put pressure on Saddam, while waiving a big stick at him, is in fact the policy that most Americans probably would have, did, and might still support (even knowing about the lack of WMD).

I don't think the step up between, say, 5.11a and 5.11b is as much as that between 5.8 and 5.9, but the difference between 5.10a and 5.11a is probably greater. A comparison with other rating systems may be helpful in answering this question: web page

Shawn old chap, You went on Internet bulletin boards to make accusations that other climbers' lied about climbing and skiing Mt. Robson. In the case of Colin, it appears you may not have carefuly read his report before you called B.S. on it, and my guess is you didn't attempt to contact him before you elected to call him a liar. In the case of the Dirtbag skiers, you could have found out that they skied Robson's north face in a ten minute search using Google - even with a slow modem - and that the "rumors" were true. I have complained of abusive rancor and pointless personal attack on this board for years, but one should not complain about it where they are challenged for making unsubstantiated or indefensible pronouncements. Carry on, my good man. Tally ho.

In this case, I'd say the "last ascent" may be more prestigious than the "first ascent." If I can dig up the article I'll scan a picture and post it here.

A guy named Pete Reagan wrote an article about this for Summit Magazine called "The Hag" or something like that. It had some spectacular photos showing Pete or his buddies on their climb, near the top, with a gaping vent or something, maybe smoke... I don't remember but it was impressive never-the-less. They climbed it in April 1980, after it was well under eruption and closed for climbing. The big blast was May 18. This was likely the last ascent.