mattp

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.

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.