mattp

If I said government owned resources are always going to be better managed I misspoke. (Scroll up and check if you'd like.) Clearly, we all know that government owned resources can be mismanaged and I believe I cited the National Forest services' management of timeberlands as an example of exactly where that has happened. Fairweather, you cite examples of mismanagement of public resources in Russia and China, apparently to suggest that these show how the U.S. government also cannot manage public resources as well as a large private corporation would. I don't think your examples prove anything, except that there were some disastrous public works projects in Russia and China. I'd be more impressed if you would talk about similar disasters in the U.S., such as the management of timber lands in the West, or completely irresponsible and short-sighted resource management projects like the irrigation of the central California valley. In my view, the driving force behind these disasters has been an effort to provide government support (welfare) for private corporations, and they are good examples of how our government has been co-opted by special interests. Even still, I don't think these examples prove or even tend to prove that private management of public resources or resources in general is desireable. When it comes to resource management, I think there is a consistent pattern of private enterprises completely mismanaging resources in the interest of short term profits. Pretty much all the big single source polluters except some particular facilities associated with the power industry are all private enterprises, aren't they? As to the non-source pollution, isn't it private business practices that are responsilble for just about all of this, too? Pretty much all of the big mining messes throughout the nation were made by private business, weren't they? Aside from a tree farm where I don't even think it is accurate to say that private business will do a better job than government (but at least we could have an argument here), exactly what resources would private business better manage than the government? I don't understand the anti-government arguments very well. Didn't the U.S. government lead us to victory in world war II? Didn't they eliminate Polio? Didn't they put a man on the moon? Aren't these examples of massive coordination and focus? Would private enterprise have done any of these things?

Lest you think I'm doing the same thing of which I accuse you, let me comment on this. If, as you suggest, timber companies are less likely to take care of public lands when they harvest timber on them, it is because the timber sales are being mis-managed by the public land managers. And I'd have to 'cede that much of the National Forest lands I've seen have been completely raped with very poor or no long term planning involved. The Forest Service has indeed been extremely irresponsible in their management of timber lands. That's not necessarly an argument for privatizing the public lands, though, as much as its a clear argument for insisting upon responsible public agency land management practices.

Fox - that is about all I know. There are some anchors on the back side of the summit formation. Do not rappel that way because I am told that they don't get you anywhere. Oh yes, to "elaborate:" I DO know two guys who have actually descended that way -- my friends David Whitelaw and Chris Greyell climbed this same face without any bolts, about twenty five years ago (I think they bypassed the shoulder that is the top of I.B., and climbed to the West Peak, a few hundred yards away). They descended off the back and perhaps they missed "the obvious descent gully" but they said it was one of the worse and scarriest descents either one of them has ever made in their life. Until somebody goes and brings back a report to the contrary, I'd tend to believe what I've been told.

Peter- I really don't care to run down your link here if you aren't going to bother to make your argument yourself, but you apparently argue that government agencies are inefficient or some such thing. One "conceptual problem" we have here is that you fail to say what your argument is but another is that you don't want to respond to the arguments sent your way. There was no mystery about what I meant by the word "cooperation" the other day, and no nuance to what I meant when I asked you if it was "cooperative" to refuse to comply with the expressed wishes of nearly every single one of (if not all of) our allies. Had you wanted to say, it was uncooperative but cooperation was not justified, or something like that, I might have been interested in continuing the discussion. Where you wanted to talk in circles to avoid the question, I lost interest. Today, among other things we were discussing a simple idea from the source that you brought forth: private management of resources will always be better than public. My own reply, echoing those of others, contained two equally simple ideas: the idea that future expectations are severely discounted in standard business accounting, and the idea that the actual costs or impacts associated with one's economic activity may be external and left completely out of the balance sheet. You dismiss both concepts, without discussing either.

I think there was an accident on Temple Ridge where it was thought that a rappel anchor sling failed just a couple of years ago. I don't remember if the sling broke or the knot came untied or what. That is the ONLY time I have ever heard of such a thing, though. I think Forrest is right: anchor failure, rapelling off the end of the rope, and just plain losing control are far more common. One comment on Catbird's method of putting the knot against the sling when using ropes of different diameters: this is not fool proof. If you momentarily uneweight the rope, or even perhaps if you do not, the know may slip past the sling and thereafter you're facing the sawing that Matt's prior post mentioned.

Josh, I don't know if you are an asshole or not. I just offer food for thought. Carry on.

I'd modify Josh's arguments slightly. Yes, ownership and investment TEND to increase the likelihood that the resource will be managed with care but they certainly DO NOT guarantee it. And because of how long-term accounting and planning is done, the government-owned resource is very likely to be BETTER managed because the future is so severely discounted in any business accounting routine that I have ever heard of. Yes, Georgia Pacific operates its lands in a way to produce a timber crop 30 years from now, but they do not value planning and preservation of the resource for the next several crop cycles at all if it costs them even a penny to do so -- an expected return on investment, 60 or 80 years from now, even if tremendous, just isn't worth a thing on today's balance sheet. Second, I say Josh is right on about the environmental damage associated with keeping the lawn, Peter, and that YOU missed the point. THe point is that all those costs - all the runoff, trash volume, and mower emissions - are externalized from the homeowner's point of view. A government lawn-mowing agency that shares budgetting and rulemaking duties with the pollution control agencies and garbage utility would be much more likely to take into account these "other" costs or impacts associated with maintaining a green lawn.

I didn't say it was "disallowed." In fact, I have twice stated pretty much the opposite. Let me make it clear for you one more time: you have in fact been allowed to talk shit about Annabelle and you've been allowed to put down other posters and make your jabs not only in Spray but in the climbing forums as well (there have been some limits here, but no absolute ban on shit-talking or put-downs, though we try to maintain such a ban in the Newbies forum, at least). I am merely pointing out that this reflects on you, not only those who you put down. I could be wrong, but I believe that if we were to run some searches I could find literally hundreds of posts where you were dismissive of somebody else's climb or route report, or made some snide retort when they asked a question or gave some advice about some climb or technique or piece of gear. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you have carefully steered the line and you haven't actually put down somebody's climb, but I doubt it.

Actually, we have and we will. I'd say at least one out of every four posts you have ever added on this bulletin board contain some slap at somebody else - though you've toned it down a little bit in the last several months. You're right, though: Anabelle is fair game.

Talk shit all you want, JoshK. Hell, I even agree with what you just wrote so I'm not arguing with you but your argument is really nothing new. However, consider the possibility that the main point you are making here is that JoshK is a shit-talker. On this matter, I think you make a good point.

As a general rule on cc.com, those who bag on [anything] have never tried [whatever it is] or are not very good at [whatever it is]. Take this thread, for example: how many of the "baggers" have even been on even one expedition to a real peak in the Himalaya? Plenty of climbers around here HAVE been on expeditions over there, by the way.

Better, Mike?

Meanwhile, I've checked some of your comments with the route setters, and here are a few specifics: 1. Infinite Bliss is in some ways two separate climbs. Pitches 1-14 offer mostly fairly well protected climbing and relatively little in the way of route-finding problems. The first bolt may be a little hard to spot, and there are a few places along the way where you may scratch your head, but the real problems start at pitch 15. Further, a descent from above pitch 14 is much more difficult. Consider it a good day's climbing and a "success" to reach the top of pitch 14. 2. If you want to continue, take note of the comments higher in this thread. The route jogs rightward a little more than a half ropelength and then resumes upward climbing. It is MORE than a ropelength from the chains at the top of pitch 14 to the next chains. The top nine pitches of the route are more serious than the lower pitches: the first three of them are entirely unprotected except with the use of tiny stoppers and cams behind loose flakes and blocks, and the last five contain the technical crux of the route. On a descent of this upper portion, be prepared to leave some gear behind or belay your way down, late in the day, possibly in bad weather or when you are exhausted or cold or sunburned or .... 3. Rocks will be rolling if there is anybody at all above you on the climb. Even your partner is a serious hazard to your health on this route. Wear a helmet and consider another climb if there is anybody else on it when you get there. Really. 4. The descent off the back is probably not a good option, despite apparent rappel anchors that would indicate a possible route that way. The last time somebody went down there, they described it as an absolute nightmare. It is much safer to retreat way you came. 5. To answer the concerns about getting lost on Pitch 15, there is a proposal to laminate a small plastic tag and hang it on the anchor, with written instructions noting how the route jogs rightward. Perhaps this will eliminate some of the confusion. FOLKS, THIS IS NOT A SPORT CLIMB. IT IS NOT LIKE CLIMBING 23 PITCHES AT EXIT 38 IN ONE DAY. BE PREPARED FOR DANGEROUS ROCK, HIGH MOUNTAIN EXPOSURE AND WEATHER HAZARDS, ROUTEFINDING DIFFICULTY, AND JUST PLAIN SERIOUS CLIMBING. EVEN IF YOU CLIMB 5.12 AND SCOFF AT THE 5.10b RATING.

Adventurewagon- You make some valid points here, but the overall tone and some of the specifics of what you say are inflammatory and, I think, irresponsible. I think you hit the nail on the head when you wrote that maybe you should have waited until you calmed down before posting to cc.com. To begin with, I would agree that Infinite Bliss is a dangerous climb. I can think of no 3,000 foot wall in the State of Washington that isn't. If anybody reads a ten-line blurb in Rock and Ice and is fooled into thinking they can climb a 3,000 foot wall in the Washington Cascades and it is going to be like running up 23 sport pitches at ground level, they are seriously mistaken and it is THEIR judgment I would question much more than that of the route setters. I'm not meaning to imply that you lack experience or judgment but seriously: how many climbs of that size on a Cascade peak have you done where there weren't routefinding issues, choss, rappel complications and any number of other nightmares en route? Should they have installed a trail of bolts on that low angled terrain so that you could find your way without a topo? Maybe, but wouldn't you then be complaining that there are way too many bolts on easy terrain (or if not you, wouldn't somebody else)? Do they owe it to you or to anybody else to come forth on cc.com and publish a topo so you can find your way without a trail of bolts? No. Nearly every time somebody posts something about a new "sport climb" on this website they get nothing but insult and ridicule -- and questions about their manhood and their motivations. Your posts are little different in this regard. Further, if the route setters were to post a topo, the route would only be MORE dangerous as it would surely become an overcrowded nightmare. Should you or anybody else take it upon themselves to go up there and "fix" it? Absolutely not. Don't even joke about taking a can of spraypaint and a bolt drill up there to "make it right." Should the guys who set the route go "fix it" according to your specifications or anybody else's? Lets wait and see. The route is not a death trap for anyone with the basic good sense to judge for themselves whether or not they are comfortable and the time is right to proceed beyond the point where they may have to place their own anchors on rappel, and you know nothing of the issues involved because you haven't talked to the guys involved. I've addressed these somewhat rhetorical comments at you, but I should perhaps be directing them at everyone.

I think its a "weird metallurgical reason." Anyway, it is not new news. 'Don't mean to be insulting, but if you didn't know about it, you havn't really been paying a lot of attention. Ed Leeper probably first announced his concerns over his bolt hangers over ten years ago, though he has now apparently renewed his campaign to get the word out.

O.H. Bonney's Field Guide to the Wind River Range tells you how to cut up dead animals AND how to climb Pingora.

You actually BELIEVE that drivel? That and the Black Hawk helicopter thing? That's straight from the liberal press. Those guys hate freedom.

Catbird, I've been called an apologist in the context of the sport climbing vs trad debates, as well. And I'll take a similar position next week, when we start bitching about horse packers. My point here is that we have to recognize that there are other user groups who want to use the same lands that we do. It does absolutely no good to argue that we are morally superior to the snowmobile crowd. First of all, I think it is flat out wrong -- I think many of the snowmobilers I've talked to are indeed quite responsible and just as moral as you and I. Sure, there are a lot of careless and irresponsible motorheads out there but the problem, I think, is that the technology is just a mess to begin with and that the powerful noisy machines, even if used responsibly, have quite an impact. Also, an irresponsible snowmobiler can do a lot more damage than an irresponsible skier. Any constructive discussion will address questions such as whether or not snowmobiles should be restricted more than they are at present, or such things as how might they be encouraged to adopt 4 stroke technology, or how do we get them to clean up after themselves or do we need a snowmobile patrol in those meadows below the Easton ... and things like that. To argue that "we are better than them" doesn't help; it only makes us look selfish. One other thing about the snowmobile area on Mount Baker: the very existence of their slice of pie on the south side of Mount Baker points out the fact that, when the wilderness area boundaries were drawn, these guys were organized. As climbers and backcountry skiers, we tend to be all righteous about wanting to go anywhere we want, anytime we want, and to complain about user fees. But we have historically been very poor at coming together in any cohesive manner to address these issues. In this respect, I'm not an apologist; I'm downright admiring of the evil motorhead snowmobilers.

I think Ryland Moore is describing Canary, not Midway. I second the idea that if she is worried about sitting at belays on the R&D route, you are not going to find very many multi-pitch routes, andywhere, that she will find comfortable. If you are bent on a multi-pitch outing, I'd say Midway is probably a BETTER choice than Saber. But I'd set it up as three pitches, not two. You can set up on top of Jello Tower so that it is easy to look over the side and talk to her while she's scratching at the crux moves on the first pitch. FOr the second pitch,set up a belay in the corner system 80 feet above the step accross so that you'll be able to have eye contact with her as she hesitates to make the first step, and then again when she is on the crux traverse moves higher on the pitch (after the step accross, do not exit right into the squeeze chimney but climb up another 40 feet before moving right into the corner system above the squeeze). You might consider sticking with one pitch routes, though. Take a trip to Mount Eerie some time.

Catbird, you, Josh and some others here seem to suggest that backcountry skiers are some kind of earth loving stewards of all things natural and snowmobilers are a bunch of thoughtless pigs who think nothing of ripping up the woods and spewing garbage. This is self-indulgent rhetoric. You do see more ripped up bushes and trash from snowmobilers than from backcountry skiers. The reason is that the machines are bigger, heavier, and more powerful than most backcountry skiers and they are powered by an engine that belches oil and smoke. But plenty of backcountry skiers think nothing of ripping branches from trees to open up their favorite glade, or felling a tree to create a bridge over a stream. I've seen this done. Others are prone to leaving wads of duct tape and gu packets behind, and others can be pretty damn unsanitary when it comes to camping and pooping next to a stream. Yes, there are way more clueless idiots that will find their way to any given remote point in the wilderness on a snowmobile than who will find their way to that same location on skis, but this is not a moral difference, either. It is a simple fact that it is easier to get to said location on a snowmobile, though as some of these motorheads have pointed out - it is not completely effortless. Yes, there is a lot to learn about backcountry skiing before you can safely ski up Mount Baker but, you know what? You don't just sit down on the seat and gun the throttle to get there on a snowmobile, either. You have to know just as much about navigation, crevasses, avalanche conditions etc., you have to know how to take care of yourself if you get stuck out there, and you have to know how to fix the damn thing when you burn up a belt or whatever. Snowmobilers don't start at the bunny hill and work their way up to the expert slopes in quite the same manner as skiers, but serious high-mountain snowmobiling is just that: serious. While many people are drawn to backcountry skiing for solitude and quiet, some are ten times the adrenaline junkie of the average snowmobile rider. Backcountry skiers learn ethics and judgment from their elders and snowmobilers do not? Statements like this reveal nothing about what is wrong with snowmobiling, but clearly show part of waht is wrongheaded and selfcentric about some climbers and skiers.

The link worked when I tried it. Try again, Mr. Klenke.

This is twice in two days I've agreed with you, Mr. Fairweather. I'm not so sure I support their access to the entirety of Mount Saint Helens, if that is indeed the case, but as I pointed out on the prior page of this thread: the pie shaped slice of the south side of Mount Baker is the only truly alpine mountain where they are allowed in the entire state. If you don't want to share the mountains with them, there are LOTS of other glacier climbs to choose from. It's a matter of the allocation of resources, folks. We want areas designated for our use; so do they. Those of you who complain about their much greater noise and pollution than you should at least recognize the fact that they are limited to a very small portion of the high Cascades -- most of the peaks you hold dear lie within wilderness areas or the North Cascade and Rainier parks where I belive they are excluded entirely.

I thought Pershing was a fairly good outing, but it's been way too long for me to remember anything that would be useful for you.

At the top of the chute, you find yourself in a small bowl, perhaps 50 to 100 yards wide. Head left, up the rise that forms one edge of the bowl, and it flattens out a little. Then head up to the summit, nearby, probably no more than 100 yards off. You know you are there because it drops right down the other side. BIG TIME. Does this sound familiar? (It's been a number of years, but yes: I have been there enough times to talk about it. Fairweather? Does this sound right?)

Our "little bastard" doesn't shit inside. He does sometimes piss on my climbing gear when he sees me getting ready for an expedition, though.