mattp

Josh, I don't think you are correct in suggesting that "tons of people" are now visiting "previously seldom traveled areas." I could be wrong, but it is my distinct impression that wilderness hiking and wilderness climbing were every bit as popular, and probably more so, twenty-five years ago. There may be some areas that are now over-utilized due to the "Select Climbs" phenomenon, but I highly doubt that more people are now climbing Mount Constance or Mount Anderson than did so in the past. In the '70's, the Teton Climbers' Ranch was so crowded you had to camp in the parking lot; the last time I was there it was no problem to pull in and get a cabin for the night. I don't disagree with those who argue for preservation, though, and while I believe the Dosewallips road should be reopened, I agree with Richard Korry that there is indeed a "silver lining" in this cloud.

Four of us conceived of the Washington Climbers' Coalition in a conference phone call a couple of months ago. Local groups like ours are encouraged by the Access Fund, and in fact Jason Keith, the Policy Director for the Access Fund, was the one who suggested it. In addition to Jason, those four included Andy Fitz, Bryan Burdo, and myself (Matt Perkins) We hope the Washington Climbers' Coalition can draw Washington climbers together for discussion of the common issues we face and for concrete projects like crag clean-ups or whatever. We also hope to be able to coordinate communication about access-related issues with land managers or other outside parties. We do not necessarily speak for all Washington climbers. No group ever will. There are and there always will be separate interest groups based on climbing locations or climbing styles, and some people just won't want to interact with any group no matter what it tries to do. At this point, we are working to put together what we envision as a coalition of diverse interests within the climbing community. 43 people attended Tuesday night's meeting. Several came after hearing about the effort on cc.com, but some folks saw our notices at the gym, some responded after I contacted them when I visited Index and Little Si to spread the word, and a few had responded to notices sent out by the local American Alpine Club contact. Michelle Reesh facilitated a fine meeting that included a mix of informative presentations and some discussion. We talked about various current issues, including the fact that there may be a change in the status of the road to Static Point, near Sultan, which could result in there being a long walk of many miles to get to the crag. The recent concerns about bolting and trailbuilding in Darrington and on Mount Garfield (near North Bend) have been placed on hold because the main contact with the Forest Service has been on paternity leave. However, rock climbers have a generally good relationship with the Forest Service in both Darrington and the North Bend, and I believe our past willingness to work with these agencies is going to serve us well here. We concluded the meeting with some discussion of the start-up process for the WCC, and our relationship with the Access Fund. We hope to make progress toward defining the structure as we go along. Andrew Sell has launched a website for us, and we hope to build it into an informative site that will be dedicated to access-related issues around the State. To find us, visit washingtonclimbers.org

I have been told by one of the trail planning type rangers that they have a fairly strong commitment NOT to build new trails in any wildreness area in the Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest. However, inside and outside of Wilderness, I don't think they've added very many new trails anywhere for a very long time -- and I believe the Mason Lake trail came about because there were some poorly laid out fishermen-trails following more than one route and they decided the best solution was to formalize it. I believe they may do the same for Mailbox Peak. Any possible limit on trail builidng associated with the Wilderness designation may not matter, though, for a couple of reasons. Farst, the Grizzly Bear management rules will severely restrict their ability to build new trails in the Wild Sky or anywhere else between I-90 and Canada. Second, they have no money to build trails, even using the WTA. I believe that whoever "It was said that" they were going to build new trails along the ridgetops in the Wild Sky was probably wrong. --- Another potential limit on access that could be associated with the Wilderness designation might be a quota system. About ten or fifteen years ago, they proposed to require permits and maintain strict trail quotas throughout the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. I remember one ranger at a public meeting said that they had determined that the Wilderness Act's reference to maintaining "opportunities for solitude" meant that they should restrict access so you wouldn't see more than four parties a day on any trail in the back country.

I believe that the land in question is already National Forest. I think the value of the Wild Sky Wilderness has to do with what we think about wilderness management practices and whether we think we need or will benefit from having more formally designated wilderness close to Seattle. Key questions include the following: Is there a shortage of designated "wilderness" land near Seattle? Is this area particularly unique? The Forest Service will not build new trails in a wilderness area. Do we think there should never be new trails in THIS area? This wilderness area, unlike most, is going to go right down to the roadside in the North Fork of the Skykomish River. Depending on future wilderness management policies, this could effectively bar even traditional rock climbing on a roadside crag -- remember the "fixed anchor ban" that included even rappel slings? To me, the conservation issue lies in what kind of extra protection the area is going to receive by virtue of its' being designated wilderness. In this case, I'm not sure what the prospect for logging and mining and other things that I don't like might be. Hasn't most of the viable timber in this area already been cut at least once, and hasn't it been prospected for over a hundred years?

Fairweather: That business about how the inheritance tax forces people to sell the family farm is pure propaganda. The inheritance tax threshold is currently 1.5 million dollars (that's 3 million for a husband and wife because both parties have that 1.5 million exemption). A farm that is worth over three million dollars is not what they want us to think of when we are told that "the death tax causes people to sell their family farms." (It is a little more complicated than this, because of the State tax and fluctuating Federal levels, but hell: raise the threshold to 5 or 10 million. The issues remain the same.) Furthermore, anti-tax propagandists ignore the fact that inheritance taxes on the "family farm" are deferred for 5 years at least, and annual payments can be made thereafter. It is baloney to suggest that the IRS is waiting outside the front gate, ready to swoop in an foreclose the minute grandpa dies. Anti-tax propagandists ignore the fact that the rich get rich by taking part in our system, and by taking advantage of it. It is pure baloney to say that they work harder than poor people. That is some 19th century Social Darwinism idea that thinking people rejected over a hundred years ago. Anti-tax propagandists are urging pure selfishness when they suggest that folks who successfully exploit our system to accumulate wealth shouldn't be asked to "give back" some of their accumulation. "Exploit" is a pejorative term, you say? Look at any business-school course syllabus, or attend any corporate board meetings. In these discussions, the great "movers and shakers" are not afraid to use the term "exploit" as in "lets exploit available opportunities..." I believe that just about all if not all of the advanced nations have some form of inheritance. From Benjamin Franklin to Bill Gates, many people in this great nation of ours have recognized that we, too, should be civilized.

Take up coils of the rope using full arm-lengths, or a comfortable reach that you can easily keep consitent, and don't actually coil it up but just work your way from one end to the other. Count how many "coils" it takes to pass over the whole thing. Then divide your total corresponsing to whether you are setting the rope out for three or four poeple or whatever, and you can flake it out and tie overhands to mark the clip-in points for your partners without their all having to be involved in that part of the set-up procedure. You just have to "guage" the rope once, and from then on you can flake out ten or twelve coils for each segment, tie a quick overhand, and you are good to go.

I've done it both ways, and in my opinion it is easiest just to follow the stream down from the lake below the Chutes, all the way to the trail. You have to climb up a 200 foot hill as soon as you hit the trail, but this is a lot easier than trying to contour around higher, where there are several subsidiary ridges to cross.

They also plan to pave the first 13 miles of the road, and to build a new campground at the Taylor fork, to be operated by a private concessionaire. There are some changes in store for the Middle Fork.

OK but it's $2.99, dammit. This is CascadeClimbers.Com - not SierraClimbers.Com. It IS pretty amazing, though. I heard that it was bought by United Airlines, and then the order was cancelled, or something like that. But anyway, the fact that we can get decent stuff at "table wine" prices is indeed a step towards our joining the rest of the "civilized world" -- where decent wine is cheaper than gasoline.

I've always thought the Kautz Cleaver looked like a good route. Kind of a "Liberty Ridge light" in that it is a remarkably straight-line ridgecrest, rising out of the middle of a glacier, leading straight to the top. I bet Pandora is right - it's a sweet route. Go for it! (And take lots of pictures to post here on cc.com.)

You lie and you are no good. It costs $2.99. The stuff is pretty good, though.

DCramer: You are hereby appointed the official "trying to get a discussion going" coordinator for the WCC.

Dave: The four of us who are trying to coordinate the kick off are: Bryan Burdo, Andy Fitz, Jason Keith, and myself. You may already have at least some of our email contact info. Write me and I can put you in touch with any of them. Look at my "status report" in the other thread. You can see that we are in the initial stages of forming an organization and that we hope to have a general meeting in about a month. Our "game plan" is rather vague, but there are plenty of things that we can start working on right away. For example, maybe Mr. Shapp or somebody else could find out more about this Grizzly Bear program, maybe you could help get a web site up; somebody's cousin may have another excellent idea. That discussion is indeed what Darryl was asking about when he started this thread.

Sorry to disagree with you on the matter of respect there, Scott, but I think it is NOT inappropriate to reflect on what the man meant to us, and it IS wrongheaded to suggest that nobody should say anything but "nice" things about Ronald Reagon right now. I couldn't believe it when I heard over and over again yesterday how he had defeated the USSR and ended the cold war. It is true that he was in office when they finally collapsed, but the collapse of the Soviet Union was the result of 40 years of inefficiency and the expenses and strain associated with the arms race and the like. Even though some take the position that Reagan's arms programs were the straw that broke the camel's back, it is entirely misleading to say that he is responsible for defeating the Soviet Union and even the effect of this tiny straw is a subject of debate. That kind of hyperbole, even if offered in a eulogy, is bunk. Especially when it is being used to justify ongoing American policy.

When I was 12, camping in Jasper National Park with my family, I saw a mother smack a mother grizzly bear (with cubs) on the nose with a cast iron skillet. The bears had been marauding and no amount of car honking or rock throwing could deter them until momma bear got a little too close to this woman's kids. She went berserk, grabbed fry pan, and KABOOM. The bears went away.

Not only is it true, but it should be obvious. Think about it: if you wanted to find out about cascade clambing atrocities, what would you do? You'd type "Cascade clambing impact" and "Cascade clamb bolt" and "Washington rock clambing" and stuff like that in Google (I misspelled the word "clamb" so those sneaky b*&4tards won't find this thread). What would come up? CC.COM. From then on, they would check the site regularly. If the land managers and activists who are concerned about clambing didn't do this, they wouldn't be doing their job. Even though cc.com doesn't represent Washington clambing as a whole, it is certainly one place they would look.

Like Darryl, I think we have a real opportunity here; lets take the attention brought by current concerns and use it to assemble an effective organization. In the recent Infinite BlLiss thread of about 85 posts, plelnty of people complained but SHAPP WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO SAID HE WANTS TO ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING OR GET INVOLVED - AT ANY LEVEL. Lance said he wanted his name added to the contact list. Nothing is set in stone. The WCC is going to need your input and your involvement or it isn't going to get very far.

Progress Report: With regard Mt. Garfield, here's what we've done so far. I've been working on this with Jason Keith, Access Fund Policy Director, Andy Fitz, Access Fund Washington Coordinator, and Bryan Burdo, long time climber active in establishing routes and crags in areas near Mount Garfield. 1. We have talked with and met with the two individuals who established Infinite Bliss, informed them of the concerns raised by ALPS. They have stopped any further route or trail promotion or maintenance or development in the Mount Garfield and Middle Fork area. 2. We have met with a majority of the rock climbers currently actively establishing and maintaining rock climbs on the Forest and in surrounding areas. We informed them of the concerns raised by ALPS, and they unanimously stated that they take these issues seriously just we do. These climbers voiced a general commitment to work toward increased awareness for environmental concerns and a more open relationship with land managers. 3. We have toured the access trail to Mount Garfield with a ranger from the North Bend ranger station and discussed the trail itself and the route with him and with representatives of some local conservation organizations, the Alpine Lakes Protection Society, Middle Fork Coalition, and the North Cascades Conservation Council. There was no real "outcome" of that meeting other than a definition of the issues which underlay my post two pages higher up on this thread. The lead guy who will be working on this issue within the Forest Service is on paternity leave, and returns to the office, we understand, in about a month. Looking ahead, we envision the following: 1. We hope to hold a general meeting of the Washington Climber's Coalition in July. We don't know what exact form the WCC will take as far as organizational structure, or even who is interested in it, but we hope to fashion an organization that will have a place for anybody who wishes to get involved. 2. We hope to work with the Okanagon, Wenatchee, and Colville National forests on similar issues in a more pro-active manner. They are in the process of fashioning a new management plan. 3. We would like to establish an ongoing structure for Washington climbers to communicate with each other and work together on issues related to rock climbing access and related issues. (See the other thread for some ideas.) 4. We would like to establish an ongoing structure for land managers and other third parties to communicate with climbers. An example of this is the situation where a particular crag or access trail may constitute a violation of some sort or where some particular behavior may be causing a problem for wildlife management concerns or something else. We would like to be able to put those concerned with a particular problem in touch with those who may be causing it in order to work out solutions. 5. We hope to set up a website for sharing information and maintaining things like contact lists, project reports, and anything else that somebody thinks would be relevant.

I don't believe that late June would be considered particularly "late" for this route by most people. My guess is that is the peak time for the route to be climbed, and in general as many ascents are made before that date as after. I climbed it in mid july of what I think was an average snow year and the glacier was fine, there was a little bit of rock exposed on the lower part of the ridge and just above Thumb Rock, and the snow conditions were great. The first ascent was made in September or October, I believe. Early season has the advantage of having more snowcover, but soft or crusty snow more often than not slow a party more than they help. Also, the weather tends to be more stable as the season unfolds. It seems to me that most accidents on this route occur in June - but that is probably because that is when the most ascents are made. Catbird: I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "death route" but it is friggin' serious. While those who say it is not very technical are correct, the obvious truth is that people die on it almost every year and multiple accidents occur most seasons. The ridge is long and unforgiving. I'd recommend that you not attempt it if you haven't had experience with several technical alpine climbs and you're barely qualified in my opinion if the hardest climbs you've done are N. Ridge of Mt. Baker and N. Face of Shuksan (I don't know your resume). I say this because of the serious setting in terms of altitude, continuous exposure to the big ride and to things that may fall on you, the fact that there is some technical climbing on the route and conditions can be funky at any time in the season, and the fact that you can't see the weather coming. Remember, too, that you will be carrying your camping gear over the top if you approach it like most people do.

Is your neighbor Mr. MacLean?

One thing is for sure: the guy could deliver a speech. "Mr. Gorbachev, TEAR DOWN THAT WALL!" Or that D-Day speech they've been playing on NPR: brlliant! I used to get the creeps every time I heard him on the radio, because I found his politics horrendous, but the man had quite a gift. He definitely made you feel as if he believed in what he was saying, he was easy to listen to, and he was the master of the message.

I've been across that ford when the water was as they describe it, and it was OK. My friend's old volvo wagon did just fine. If your fan hits the water, though, you may be stalled out in the middle of the stream. I recall it is only about three miles from the end anyway, so you may just want to hoof it instead of taking the chance.

The hut is fantastic, and it'll probably be full of food left by other helicopter parties. The Adamants are a relatively small group of peaks, pretty steep and alpine, and the central peaks on the massif have no easy way up and down. It is compact rock, pins and small gear will be useful. There are good scrambling objectives as well as big-wall climbs and some excellent alpine routes. Bring your raincoat and some books.

I understand the reactions to Rescueman's statement that "it was not an accident," as I have many times taken a critical position toward monday-morning quarterbacks and finger-pointers on this site. I think all of us, too, can readily sympathize with the ongoing sense of horror that we can only imagine must be extremely profound for all involved. However, I think perhaps Rescueman had a point here that we should not overlook: I imagine he may have intended to suggest nothing more than that, after a tragedy like this, we should not downplay the significance of this event by saying something like "it was an accident," or "it will never happen to me because I am a careful belayer" or by finding some other reason to downplay or ignore importnat lessons that can be learned here. Fern, I think, pointed to one of the most important and (to me) striking lessons that may be learned here. In the social setting that occurs where climbers are gathered at the base of a climb or even a belay ledge high in the air, a momentary distraction or loss of attention can easily lead to injury or death.

I was at Little Si when basically the same thing happened on Technorigine or some climb like that at WWI. The route is over a half rope long, and the belayer lowered the guy past the point where the end of the rope went through the belay device. He fell to the staging ledge, bounced off, and went another forty feet to the ground below. I think his buddy, who got so excited he jumped of the staging ledge after him to rush to his rescue was more injured than he was, but both received nothing more than bruises as far as I know. The analysis is right: it is very easy to lose track of what is going on and to lose communication between belayer and climber when there are lots of climbers milling about.