mattp

I believe the Christmas Tree was originally a Pagan thing, not actually Christian.

Pope thinks he has to take every possible opportunity to get on his soap box and cry "HEY EVERYBODY - LOOK AT ME." A discussion of whether bolted mixed routes are a good or bad phenomenon or where and when they may be OK would be fine but he takes over a thread that was not about stylistic or environmental issues and spews the same old diatribe ... and then he tries to tell us what a hero he is because he is standing up for what's right in the world and kids these days would have no access to Pope's truth if he wasn't here to save us... Please return control over this discussion to climbers who want to go climbing. If anyone wants to start a thread about the morality of bolting mixed climes, start one. But Pope has played his hand way too many times. How 'bout you limit yourself to like one a month or one every two months, Pope? Otherwise, it's just plain obnoxious. As much as we all know that Glasgowkiss is the devil, I agree with the sentiment here (and I even agree with some of what Pope has to to say!).

Scott - i think it was listed in the old "Leavenworth and Index" guide - ca 1976 or so. Before your time, I think.

Scott- The crux moves on Angel were the same, though perhaps a little less polished, when it was rated 5.7. If you read the text, though, it mentioned a "bouldery start" or something like that and it may have mentioned something about 5.10. But the route was listed in the old guidebook as 5.7.

Ehmic - We don't need your stinking "little hands" beta. If you get hand jams in the upper part of that corner, your "easy way" won't work for guys like me. I find it much easier to stay out of the corner, like maybe six or eight feet out, where I can chimney up the thing feet vs butt. If I recall correctly, it is better to face north so you get a hand bucket you can use to pull out of the chimney, though it is more intuitive to start up facing the other way. But you've suggested that "further out" it wants to "poop you out," so I'm taking it you don't climb it this way. Al- I make no apologies when I go around the other way. I simply say: do you want to climb the chimney? The answer is just about always "no." The apologies kick in when the guy says "yes," but he doesn't want to lead it, and I futz around a while getting psyched for the chimney. "Sorry, I thought I knew how to climb this thing... just a minute... I got it...."

The easy way is to traverse out left from the base of the chimney about thirty feet, climb up a short corner with an old mining anchor, then traverse back to the top of the chimney. Isn't that how everybody does that pitch?

Thinker: I am, errh I mean I KNOW of what I speak. I grew up near Detroit and the people there still amaze me every time I go back. By comparison, Seattle looks like Paris or Milan and we are all Oxford scholars!

Al-they don't know "the trick."

Thinker: similar discussion could reveal the over-simplicity with which I have addressed all the other points, too. Take "safety," for example: I thnk my basic points are probably correct, but one might wonder if more should be considered in relation to safety in the case of the development of new recreational opportunities that are obviously potentially dangerous yet proposed for some kind of official sanction; further, there are safety questions inherent in the climber's use of the roadside to walk from the parking area to their climbs and where a climb can be seen from the roadside it may cause a dangerous traffic jam as does the sight of a moose in Yellowstone. Your points are good ones, though, and we shouldn't dismiss enviornmental or cultural concerns out of hand without considering that there may at times be a significant impact even where we are talking about moss in the North Cascades.

I understood your point and I agree with it, Glaskow. I worded my post poorly. When it comes to restaurant services or lodges, I can see the point in having limited licensees granted to concessionaires in the National Parks -- the idea being that we may not want to have a "strip" of competing businesses next to Old Faithful even if there might be enough business to support it but that we do want there to be some opportunity to buy souvenirs or get a sandwich. However, when it comes to guide services, I don't see this justification. We may need to limit the number of climbers out of some environmental concern, or we may want to limit the number of guided parties on a crowded route in order to keep some room for private non-guided parties, but as I said: I don't see any advantage in maintaining the current system.

I'm for more guiding opportunities and less restriction in Mount Raininer National Park. I don't know what Glasgow and Lummox are aruging about here - the historical grant of a concession to the Whitacker brothers has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism -- it was just good old cronyism. I'm not some free-market competition freak; I just don't think it is fair nor do I see any advantage for anybody except RMI in maintining the current system. On a side topic, I gotta say that this is the second time in a week I've agreed with Fairweather: I think some provision for solitude is cool, but the main management priority should be physical impact to the landscape in a wilderness area. If you want solitude on Mount Rainier, you don't climb any of the half - dozen popular routes. If you want solitude at Snoqualmie Pass, you don't go to Snow Lake -- but there are plenty of opportunities for solitude if you head back toward, say, Chickamin Peak.

I agree on the culture shock thing, but you should try flying into Detroit sometime!!! When it comes to ugliness, obesity, rudeness and ignorance, they have us beat HANDS DOWN!

Get writing! It might actually make a difference.

Even a poorly written letter is probably better than one that you would cut and paste from somebody else's form letter, Glasgow. I bet you could take that simple idea that I set forth and which you say that you agree with, and then list the seven points that were listed in Jason's post above mine, and add your comments. We could discuss each of those seven points at length, I'm sure, but my own personal feeling is that: (1) Fixed anchors are OK on a roadside crag and painted bolt hangers and chains should be used rather than brightly colored slings while other rules might apply to more remote areas -- and I don't think the National Park Service should get involved in arguments that may exist between sport and trad climbers; (2) climber paths are not really an enviornmental problem in the lowland North Cascades and certainly far less intrusive than boat ramps, wheelchair trails, etc. though they may not belong next to a viewpoint or something; (3) route "cleaning" would not seem to be a huge issue either, unless somebody cleans a wall right next to a scenic overlook -- there are plenty of mossy choss heaps in the area and so I don't think moss or the creatures that live in it are endangered or needing protection unless there is a particularly unique site; (4) human waste is a mess and they may need to provide an outhouse or a thunderbox somewhere; (5) cultural resources would not seem to be a very big issue as far as I know because I have never heard of petroglyphs or pictographs in the North Cascades; (6) safety is obviously a factor to be considered but the National Parks are not and have not been responsible for climber safety anywhere, as far as I know, and rescues from sport crags or bouldering areas are probably a lot less expensive than search and rescue operations following from boating, snowmobiling, or hiking accidents; and (7) new climbing routes are part of climbing and I would hope they can accommodate those who wish to establish new routes. In addition, I believe that a climbing crag has just as much of a need for parking facilities as does a boat ramp or hiking trailhead which sees the same amount of use. I realize they may not have money or other resources to build a bunch of new parking lots, but I think they should seek to accomodate climbers along with other users. I'm sure, however, that you'll have a different position on some of these points. Have at it, and be sure to send your letter by Monday next week.

Agreed, Jonah, that climbing SHOULD NOT be a criminal activity. It is sometimes unfairly treated as such because we are a poorly organized user group, but other times it is not at all surprising to me when property owners, resort operators, or public land managers get upset because we develop and promote a climbing area that may be right next to somebody's condo or within the bounds of a ski area or right along a highway. Sometimes it works out, sometimes not -- and I commend you if you are one of the "sensitive" ones. Not everybody views it as I do, and I've been criticized or countered when I raised this issue in the past. However, all things beinq equal I think we should favor areas that are out of view from the roadside and well away from any ski area. By the way, that ridge on Denny Mountain, on the left as you approach Alpental, has already seen steady climbing activity for something like thirty years or more -- so a new bolted climb there might indeed end up being superimposed on something long-established.

If anybody feels inclined to write in response to this request for comments, one thing to keep in mind is that it is a NATIONAL RECREATION AREA. In the Ross Lake National Recreation area and in the nearby Mount Baker National Recreation Area, they have expended huge amounts of public money to groom roads for snowmobiling, build and maintain boat ramps, build wheelchair accessible trails for the handicapped, develop extensive campgrounds, maintain parking and access support for a variety of private resorts, and they have built five huge dams. We might have a lengthy debate about the environmental impacts associated with these activities, or whether ANY public land in our precious North Cascades should be subject to such abuse, but I think rock climbing should be seen as belonging in a National Recreation Area just as much as these other uses and the impact associated with rock climbing in the Ross Lake National Recreation Area pales in comparison with these other activities that receive very heavy public sanction and subsidy.

Jonah - In my view, right by the road would probably be the number one place where you should NOT put up new bolted climbs at Snoqualmie Pass -- or perhaps the number two place, with the number one place being anywhere the designated ski areas. I know there are some places where we coexist OK with other users, but why set up a potential conflict? Instead, walk a few minutes up the hill or down the trail....or are you just trolling?

Why isn't one of the responses to your other poll like this: [pollstart] [polltitle=Ski Poll] [polloption=None of the above. TLG should simply bail out because the skiing in Colorado SUCKS!] [pollstop]

Check out the cool climber's website at www.cascadeclimbers.com!

That's right, Geordie. We'ave always told anybody who asked about doing something we might not want to do that they are an idiot. However, some cc.com posters have in fact been up to look at north-facing slopes in the Cascade Pass area in the last three weeks, while others have driven up that road recently and can report on how far it is possible to drive. Catbird's "blanket" dismissal only states the obvious, without providing any information I couldn't gleen from sitting at my desk and thinking about it for ten seconds. It is still a good answer, though, and if you told me that over the telephone when I called the Marblemount Ranger Station I'd reply "thanks, but has anyone been up there lately despite all that? Is the original post a troll? Perhaps -- and it would be a good one because, as you correctly note, you guys are just replying the way we always have....

OK so n ow we know that you wouldn't want to go there right now, Catbird. Fair enough. Apparently he has a different idea.

I'd like to know what was "dumb" about the question in the first place. Yes, conditions change daily up there -- and especially at this time of year -- but had somebody been there in the past two weeks the guy would still be interested to hear what they had to say if he is wondering about "conditions" up there and perhaps if he hasn't been in the hgh Cascades this time of year, he'll appreciate hearing somebody's general ideas on the matter based on prior years' experiences.

Where is the hardcore guy who comes flaming in here to say: bullshit, you pussies. You are a bunch of whiners. Index ratings are just fine - everywhere else is soft. I remember the old days when Angel was 5.7, while Damnation, and Outer Space were rated 5.8 -- those were ratings! And whadayameen about Toxic Shock. I see kids going up there, climbing the 5.5 Even Steven start, liebacking the handcrack, and saying they climbed 5.9. Climber's these days....

Yeah, and on Breakfast she still gets the no hands rest slight up from that "hands" rest stop. It is still hard, though....

In Dave's new guidebook, it lists the first ascent party for Jacob's Ladder as "Matt Perkins and the universe." I am somewhat embarrassed, but I went up there so many times with so many different people that I can't remember who all helped with the project. Among those who went up there to work on it with me are Todd Budden, Rod Fox, Chris Greyell, Jason Gunderson, Mark Hanna, Jeff Hansel, Erik Neumann, Dave Schuldt, Erik Snyder, and Chuck Spiekerman. Who else did I forget? Mr. Berdinka - did you go up there and work on it with me, or simply cruise it after it was done?