mattp

Here's the photo. The bivvy is on a rock tower/promontory right below Nooksack Tower. We camped down near the lake and wished we had stayed up here when we saw how cool it was (and the Bert route is kinda long).

Its got some bad rock on it, but Nooksack Tower is in my opinion one of the coolest objectives in the Cascades. The Bertulis route is fantastic and the Beckey/Schmidke is probably worth doing too we descended that way when I climbed the Bertulis route and it looked pretty good). There is a great bivvy spot right below the tower, seen in the background of this picture.

The approach to Blueberry Hill is more straight forward than going to Green Giant -- you'll walk a couple hundred yards up a stoney wash and then scramble a thousand feet up slabs with a couple of short diversions into the bushes on the left. It'll take about an hour. Dark Rhythm, too, is more "straight forward" than Dreamer. Once you find the start, it is not hard to follow the route and there is good pro or a bolt near any hard moves. It is not an easy rappel route, though, because there are several very diagonal pitches and some rope snagging issues. The pitches above the blueberry terrace, to the summit of the Dome, are well worth it in my opinion. From the top, the best descent is to rap the West Slabs to Westward Ho, and the rope snagging on the first three or four raps can be minimized by doing single rope rappels (there is one that does not have an ancor within the 30 meters of a half-rope but you can easily walk down to the next rap point). Dark Rhythm is an excellent climb. For more variety of climbing styles and terrain, check out Rainman and Jacob's Ladder. For more trad, and moderate, try the West Buttress. TOPO

Lizard AKA Aries (5.8) is excellent. It is good in its' entirety, but the first bit can be awkward and a wide chimney at half height is legendary for being sandbagged and intimidating (it is not bad if you know "the trick" which is to climb up and place pro, then shimmy back down and move out to climb back up five feet outside the corner iteself). To climb Aries the easy way, many people climb onto the first ledge way out right, avoiding the short wide handcrack at the start. Then everybody loves that first corner, perhaps 60 feet high. You can then avoid the scary chimney by traversing left and climbing up twenty feet to traverse back right onto the route for the spectacular overhang and twin cracks. This is not quite "Lizard," but it makes a good climb and is all very straight forward. Also, the alternatives nearby, Blockbuster (5.9 or 5.7 if you don't actually do the "Blockbuster") and Taurus (5.7) (instead of the overhang to twin cracks near the top) are both excellent.

It is pretty much of a hot plate on a sunny warm day, but the climbs are short enough that you don't have to get completely fried before you return to the ground and hide under a bush to recover.

You earned your status as a "right wing zealot" on other grounds, Mr. Fairweather.

Hanman fixed that station on Westward Ho.

I don't agree with all of the anti-government or anti-environmentalist tirades of Fairweather or Billcoe, but I think there are some valid questions about whether recreational access is really a part of the plan for the Wild Sky. It's not just about power drills and climbing. I think there are real concerns for fishermen, hunters, and hikers as well. There ARE some environmentalists who believe wilderness areas should be run as nature preserves, where even the least intrusive human visitation is to be restricted or discouraged. These folks will not be shy about promoting that agenda in the Wild Sky. I also think there are severe budgetary pressures on the Forest Service, and management costs are less in little-used and inaccessible areas where recreational use is at a minimum; all other things being equal, they are going to decommission roads or cut back on trail programs near or in Wilderness areas first. The promotional arguments of plan backers aside, in the Wild Sky I think a Wilderness designation will almost certainly result in less access and, in the long run, fewer trails. Is it worth it? Perhaps. I wouldn't want to see the area logged or mined, that's for sure. I also wouldn't want it to be subjected to unregulated or uncontrolled recreational use that was so intrusive as to completely alter the character of the area. However, I believe that the recreational opportunities found in a relatively accessible "semi-wilderness" like the Wild Sky are extremely valuable and especially so because they are so close to an urban area like the City of Seattle. The Wilderness designation MAY be a good way to assure that the area is protected but I think there are legitimate questions about whether a Wilderness status is the best way to balance recreational values with preservation.

Somebody wanna to to Darringtown this afternoon? I'm nursing an injury, but I'd like to get out and climb something not involving too much in the way of pecs and lats. Total Soul? Send me a p.m.

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.