mattp

Marylou, the business about the trail inventory and the policy of removing a mile of trail for every mile added which you referred to has to do with an agreement with the Fish and Wildlife Service to manage the North Cascades for the recovery of the Grizzly Bear. I have called Forest Service biologists and Fish and Wildlife guys and they can't or won't give me much information about the program, and the wilderness and district rangers don't seem to know all that much about it, but the gist of it as far as I can tell is as follows: On both sides of the Cascades North of Snoqualmie Pass, they have divided the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie, Wenatchee, and Okanogan National Forests into small sections, Grizzly Bear Management Units. Within each unit they have to remove a mile of trail or road each time a mile of trail or road is added - inside or outside of the wilderness boundaries. The threshold for a trail to be included in this consideration is, I believe, one that will receive fourteen trips a week. It doesn't matter if the trail was built by the official trail crew or by fishermen or climbers. A trail is a trail, and they do not distinguish between the 4 foot wide heavily modified trailbed of a Forest Service trail and the climber's or fishermen's access route that is barely scratched into the duff. The basic premise is that grizzly bears don't like roads and trails, and will stay 1/3 of a mile away from them. They don't want the area to be further broken up into discontinuous areas for bear habitat. This program was put into place with, as far as I can tell, no public comment and no environmental review. I think there were some internal politics and pressures related to the bear's listing as an endangered or threatened species or something, and the decision may well have been justified but in the short bit or research I've done on this I haven't been able to find out much about the basis or history of this (there may have been public notice and a comment period, for example, but I have been trying to follow these issues for almost twenty years and I haven't heard anything about it nor do I find any references to any public discussion in what I've uncovered so far). Everybody recognizes that there are few if any grizzly bears at all in this program area (the most optimistic estimates are that there may be ten bears in the entire area, but many biologists and others believe zero is a more accurate number). Thus, there are few or no actual grizzly bears here and the only way they would ever have a viable population is to bring them in. Even Grizzly Bear supporters I have talked to have acknowledged that they don't see the importation of Grizzly Bears to be very likely. There is, I believe, a separate issue about the trail inventory when it comes to wilderness. As I understand it, they have a policy or general rule that they will not build new trails in wilderness - anywhere. Regardless of any reacreational need or population growth, no more will be added in the Alpine Lakes area near Seattle, and as there are very few trails there now, there will be almost none ever in the new Wild Sky Wilderness north of Highway 2.

I think the reason we are at this point is basically that there is just too much development and recreational pressure for land managers like the Forest Service to ignore. If it wasn't this current matter there would be something else. The simple fact is that we cannot assume that we can do whatever we want. The wild wild west is long gone. I wrote in my earlier post that I don't know where all of this is going to lead us. I don't subscribe to the theory that all is lost if that is what you mean by "it was fun while it lasted." Climbing is not over, but we have to look at what we are doing, and where; we are all going to have to make some compromises here.

Well put. I think we're off to a good start here. Most of the active route setters in Western Washington showed up for a meeting - the first time that I am aware of that most of these folks ever have - and they pretty much all acknowledged that need to think about what they are doing. I would think you guys would be saying that's a good thing. We do hope to involve climbers of other backgrounds and other interests. This is only a start.

Will, you apparently haven't read where I said that I was the one who deleted CrazyJZ's post and that I have actually been trying to talk the other folks involved in this thing into discussing the matter on cc.com. I deleted three or four posts three days ago because they threatened to stir up a classic cc.com mud festival just a day before two important meetings. The first included the climbers we need to bring to the table, those who actually put up routes and are the ones that can make or break it for us in this matter. These folks are very leery of any rhetorical debate on cc.com, and they have traditionally pretty much avoided any organizational involvement. However, most of them showed up on Wednesday and they were actually quite interested in discussing the issues; morevoer they indicated that they in fact do wish to participate in ongoing discussions and that they want to be responsible about all of this. I can't stop you or anybody else from railing on sport climbers or irresponsible bolting practices, but I can tell you that the more these guys feel under personal attack, the less likely they are to want to show up for any ongoing discussion of these issues, public or private. The second meeting was an information gathering meeting where we took a Forest Service and two conservation guys to go see the route. The ALPS guy was quoting things he'd read on cc.com, and indicated that he believed the guy who wrote last week that he was going to take a bolt drill and spray paint up on the mountain to "fix" the Mt. Garfield route. Despite the paranoia around here, nobody has made any deals in the back room and you can in fact state your positions without fear of big brother. I'm sorry that you feel so violated by the fact that this week I did seek to delay a discussion for three days.

Loren, the "little we" was a couple of guys from the Access Fund, and two people very directly involved in access issues and publication of the guidebooks you use when you go climging in North Bend and Darrington: myself, Bryan Burdo, Andy Fitz, and Jason Keith. I know you didn't ever vote for me. Thanks for your support. As far as censorship, I agree with you whoeheartedly. Even those most concerned about the prospect for a bunch of irresponsible internet spew on cc.com realize that not only will some discussion take place here anyway, but that all climbers may be affected by this.

The Infinite Bliss route on Mount Garfield has indeed triggered the Alpine Lakes Protection Society (ALPS) to push for the Forest Service to enforce the law with respect to this one climb and to take broader action to contain climbing from Snoqualmie Pass to the Canadian border. While most existing routes would probably remain, there is a possibility that they may shut down or seriously curtail new route activity and crag maintenance, in and outside of wilderness areas, from Snoqualmie Pass to the Canadian border. I don't know where this will lead, but we DO need to evaluate our practices as climbers, consider our impacts upon the environment where we climb and upon other user groups, and work with the land managers on these issues. The current focus is on bolted climbing and access trails, but I believe we need to take a closer look at a much wider list of issues: visual impact, the carrying capacity of the climbs and the roads or trails serving them, wildlife habitat, endangerd plants, user numbers, safety,interaction with other user groups, bolting practices, and user-built trails. I find it ironic that conservation groups I used to support are now battling with climbers, their traditional allies, and the the Forest Service, too, feels compelled to take us on after presiding over the government subsidized destruction and rape of the North Cascades for a hundred years. After talking to the main guy representing these groups, it looks to me as if he just plain doesn't like rock climbing, and that it is popular climbs or climbing areas that he doesn't like - the concentrated use they bring about. Perhaps we shouldn't feel unduly targeted here, because he doesn't like concentrated use by hunters, fisherman, mountain bikers, or hikers either. But in any case ALPS has sued the Forest Service three times at least, and because the Infinite Bliss route turns out to be in the Wilderness (though USGS maps show it outside), they have a significant pressure point that they can use here. They tell me that they next plan to specifically go after climbing in the Darrington area, and they are asking where else they should look. Despite the fact that we argue between ourselves about whether bolts are good or bad, the environmental guys and the FS are pretty clear that bolts are not the real issue. The real issue is the expected user numbers. An important fact, too, is that we are engaged in an activity that has less prior history than others and is less organized than groups like hunters, fisherman or and motorized recreational users. We could be shut down because they CAN shut us down, although they agree that hikers and fisherman and shooters are actually more destructive. This issue has been pending for a month, and it was only yesterday that we were able to have a direct meeting with the Forest Service and some representatives from conservation groups. Before meeting them, we had a meeting with route developer types because we wanted to inform them right away about this issue. They are the people who are probably most able to change their practices in a way that could most directly address the current issue. We wanted to see what their current support for organized planning and discussion might be, and to evaluate how much we could suggest to the USFS and the conservation people that we had a group of guys that they could expect to work with to address the issues through education, discussion, and planning efforts. Nobody has made any decisions, and all parties are still in the information-gathering stage. There has been a lot of speculation about the route (Infinite Bliss) on this site, and I've been trying to steer the conversation. Following some discussion a week ago I contacted the guys who put up the route and brought back some actual information to answer some of the expressed concerns. However, we're seeing some of the usual suspects posting before they think about what they are saying, or insisting upon arguing without having any real information about what they are debating. For example, one poster tried to stir the pot a week ago and I deleted his post and sent a private message telling him that he did not know what was going on behind the scene and asking him to contact me if he had any concerns about this issue or wanted to know what was going on. He did not ask me for any further clarification or information before taking another couple of swipes. Some complain that we are trying to control the information and stifle debate. However, I have in fact argued from the very beginning of this issue that we should get the word out and inform folks about what was going on - and that rancorous discussions on this bulletin board was not necessarily a bad thing. Nobody involved in this issue has said that we should prevent discussion, but several guys said that we should try to figure out what is happening before "announcing" partial information. I did agree that it was a good idea to meet with the people directly involved and find out what was going on before encouraging uninformed posters to spout off on this site. As I have pointed out repeatedly in the past, I am not at all surprised that somebody would fear a senseless and distorted debate here on cc.com. The plain fact is that there are several posters here who like nothing more than to stir up controversy just for a spectator sport. Not only do we readily work each other into a frenzy over bullshit and speculation, but the Forest Service and the conservation group people read this site to find out about these issues and they may very well conclude that climbers are nothing but a bunch of raving lunatics! If everyone would take a minute to step back and think before they post, we might be able to prove such fears outdated.

The fact is, you guys (and I) do not know what is going on with this issue. Some of us have been trying to the parties involved to get the facts before encouraging a bunch of speculation and jive on this webiste. I hope to be able to present more information here shortly.

How do the Beal ropes hold up for wear? I have only owned one Beal, and it had a slightly loose and very unprotective sheath on it - I believe I retired it faster than any other rope I have ever had because it fuzzed out right away, and looked literally thrashed after about 25 days of use! It was also extremely soft, and seemed to tangle around every bush or flake it came close to.

I see that some here say "it's feasible" to climb Backbone, South Face, and Outer Space in a short weekend. I guess they are right, but I don't think there are very many climbers around that could actually pull this off. That would be an awesome weekend, though. Good luck!

They are not thinnest, lightest or cheap, but I like the Edelweiss Stratos. They've got a filament in them that allows them to be rated to hold a fall over an edge, and I believe they are the only 9's that are rated this way. They are also slightly stiffer than most other 9's and I think they tangle a little less than a more flexible rope. Depending on terrain, I sometimes lead on a single one.

I'd say this is the BEST time of year for the kinds of trips you just listed there, Josh. The higher peaks in the Cascades are much more difficult to access during the Winter, the avalanche danger is much greater, the days are shorter, and the snow is a lot less consistent. Add to that an appreciation of the fact that you can sit around at lunch time or at the campsite without freezing to death, and you've got the makings of a real skier!

That would change nothing about my statement. I would be VERY surprised if, during the past fifteen years, it had been found that twins were cut anywhere near as often as a single line.

I HAVE actually climbed on twin ropes and I don't ever recall thinking that they caused a bunch of extra rope drag as compared to a single. Catbird may be right about the increased surface area, but then again maybe not for a couple of reasons: First, we are not talking about the total outside surface area of the ropes, but that part that rubs on the rock or ‘biner it passes through. If one of the twins is a little tighter than the other, the drag may primarily be coming from one, smaller diameter rope, with less tangential surface area rubbing on the rock or ‘biner in question. Second, I don't know how the increased flexibility of thinner ropes adds to or decreases rope drag. As long as we're speculating and calling guys idiots for speculating around here, I'll point out one point of speculation on the prior page that I disagree with: the idea that if an edge is going to cut one rope it will cut both twins. I believe that has been shown NOT to be the case. About fifteen years ago I remember reading that there had never been a case of a pair of twins being cut over an edge during a fall event. Twins are not a bad way to go, and for belayers who may have difficulty feeding one rope while reeling in the other, the technique is more manageable.

jja- I've climbed Backbone when it had more snow on it than it does now, and I didn't think the snow added any significant difficulties - at least on that occasion. It gave us a chance to refill our water bottles en route, though.

After I was "corrected" about that second pitch, I went home and looked it up in my Mt. Eerie guidebook written by the Skagit County Mtn Rescue Unit. It too shows that as "Undercover" and I thought Dallas Kloke had been involved in the production of that book. Anyway, you are corect: it is a good outing and that undercling pitch is very enjoyable!

That combination makes a great three-pitch climb, Mr. Simpkins. If anybody cares, though, I think your second pitch was "Undercover," not Zig Zag. (It is the way I have always done that climb, and I assumed it was ZigZag until last time I was there and somebody told me otherwise.) One thing about that "Undercover" pitch: it is easier than it looks, as Bill points out, but the exit moves are a little sketchy on poor rock for about ten feet.

Here we go again, Peter. In the post immediately above your complaint just now, I believe that I DID honestly address your question about how we judge "good managment." By saying "to date, no answer" I take it you are ignoring my statement that I can't begin to describe the factors or analysis that I apply but that I do it all the time. I bet you do, too. (Don't you say to yourself, on a daily basis, that "this government program is poorly managed but that private business really has its act together?") If you want a correct or clear answer, go talk to somebody in the business school at the U.W. But lack of some detailed checklist and scoring system in no way need prevent us from talking about what we think is good management or bad in general terms, and I've said that among other things I think good management of public resources includes accounting for externalities and engaging in long-term planning as well as providing efficient or cost-effective ways to extract resources for commercial use. In your next post, you complain that I have taken your quote out of context and twisted it. The fact is that I didn't put it in any context. I merely asked what you meant by that particular passage and offered a joke. I really don't know what you meant when yo asserted that I have some obsession about ignoring the benefits.

What are you talking about? I badmouth my neighbors' pursuit of the perfect green lawn?

When it comes to resource management, I believe that public management is likely to be better because the government, by not having the need to make a profit for their shareholders, CAN and ACTUALLY DOES take into account such things as externalities and the "public good." These are vague concepts, yes, and we can spend the next ten days defining them, but the public-run agencies and enterprises actually have staff members whose job it is to address these things. Private businesses almost never do, unless they are subject to specific regulation and government oversight of some kind. And as I've pointed out, I do not accept the anti-government rhetoric about how the government can never do anything right and private operations are always more efficient. When it comes to exploiting opportunity and deliberately externalizing costs, private industry will always do better. When it comes to managing some limited resource for public benefit, I'll place my favor in the government-run operation most of the time (not always). How do we judge "good management?" Here is a question that I can't answer. I make these judgments all the time, but I can't begin to explain to you the factors that I rely upon in forming such opinons, or lay out some clear formula.

Peter- In reply to your "pointing out" how I was using the private industry polluters to show mismanagement by private enterprise, please look at my post immediately above. I specifically acknowledged that you are right: by pointing out that the biggest polluters are private enterprises I have not shown that government-run enterprises would be better.

Peter- There is absolutely nothing absurd about addressing the issue of the tragedy of the commons, or of the externality of the costs of production that come in the form of environmental degredation To take an extreme (would you say absurd?) example, though, let me ask you this: Why did big tobacco continue to produce a toxic product, market it to kids, and even manipulate their product in order to make it more addictive after they KNEW they were killing people? The costs were "external." What are the chances that any government-run agency have done this? We've been using a more day-to-day type example in discussing the hypothetical urban or suburban landowner using chemicals to maintain a green lawn. Indeed, I actually do not like it when my neighbors use a bunch of weed and feed on their lawns. You may think that is absurd, but I think they should not be allowed to do so, or at the very least they should be tightly regulated in their use of such products. Am I an evil socialist?

Good catch there. However, I think you missed the point of what I wrote. Fairweather noted a few specific public works projects in China and the former Soviet Union in an attempt to show how government run operations are environmental disasters, I'm merely resonding to point ouit that, in this country at least, most serious environmental disasters are purely the result of private-run activities. You are right, though. It is not surprising and this does not show that public enterprises could or would be better.

Peter, perhaps I continue to misunderstand you. Maybe my reading comprehension is no good. What are you saying here? That we cannot know the outcome of any given action? How does this apply to the question of the relative merits of public vs private management of any given resource? No, my isolation of the runoff problem is not a dodge. I was talking about externalization of the costs or impacts - a concept which you say that you understand. I'm pointing out that the benefits accrue to our hypothetical "landowner" whereas the runoff does not impact him at all. The pesticide runoff itself is NOT a good thing EVEN IF if we judge the effects to be less costly than the benefits. Your following discussion of the costs/benefits of the use of DDT is more helpful, but the initial statement is confusing at best, and appears to be a dodge.

Infinite Bliss ends at a satellite peak set apart from the West Peak of Mount Garfield by a few hundred yards which might include some nasty scrambling.

Peter: I agree that definitions are hepful, but I believe your call for me to define the word "cooperation" was a dodge and that you just didn't want to answer the question. It was pretty much a yes or no question, calling for a statement of your general impression rather than some technical analysis or complex consideration. By the way, in case you are unclear what the word means, you can look up "cooperarion" in your Webster's dictionary. Again today, I believe you are seeking to avoid or dilude comments with a call for definitions. Are you suggesting that if we define it differently, we might conclude that pesticide runoff is a "good" thing? Maybe there's a job for you in the Bush Administration. Where did I ever say that government was or ever could be expected to be perfect?