mattp

No fair, Catbird. He cited his source apparently without bothering to read it first, and you weren't supposed to either.

Go Fern, go. Start with Catbird. He said something mean about me once, I think.

It'd be a long hike from the Mountainhome Road to Cannon Mountain - though Wedge Mountain stands right above the Mountainhome road and the outlying North Peak of Cannon Mountain stands right above the Eightmile Road and can be reaced from the road extension beyond the summer trailhead for Mountaineer Creek.

Lichtenwasser Lake, on Lichtenburg Mountain above the Smith Brook road just a few miles down the east side of Stevens Pass is pretty nice, and a summit climb is an option if the avalanche hazard isn't too great. Down closer to Leavenworth the trailheads are all pretty low so most of the time I'd look for a destination closer up to the pass.

mommy

Some people are truly insulted or upset when ridiculed here. Even some of the self proclaimed badass irreverent sprayers get pretty worked up over what takes place on cc.com -- some even complain about what somebody said about them at pubclub or carry a grudge that lasts for several months or longer over something said on this bulletin board. You may laugh it off or say it is OK - but it is pure BS to say that nobody should be offended by anything that appears on this site.

What are you talking about, Will? We're all a buch of badasses who don't fear being flamed, because "climbing is a game where the cost of total failure is death?" Get a grip. "Most climbers I know can (and when the situation calls for it are) as respectful and upstanding as the next guy?" I would like to think so, but I don't see this on cc.com. "If you can't deal with something as silly as the tone of some words written in cyberspace, what the fuck are you gonna do when the storm breaks and you're on day 3 of no food, your partner has just passed out, and it's a 25 mile cross country trek to the nearest help?" Look around, Will -- we're on a chat room here. I have never been on day three with no food and a 25 mile hike to the nearest help with you -- and probably never will be -- but I have shared the computer screen with you many times. I agree sort of with your message -- but get over yourself, huh?

You you-know-what's. I was hesitant to post anything about Sloan at all last year, because it was the W. Face I was actually interested in and I feared attention may not be a good thing for my selfish ambitions. But I posted a trip report anyway, and PF went up there and he didn't know any better. Now the one and only cool climb left in the State is public knowledge (not really, but I hope you'll at least have the decency to invite me along when you go up there to try and snag it -- and I hope that isn't before about February when it may actually come into shape).

I left this threadin the route reports forum for a few days because we were at least having some discussion about what might be valid in that forum, but it is really just a bunch of spray (Edit: though meanwhile, TTT removed some of the more recent sprayful posts, so you guys will never see those last two gems that put it over the top for me).

Damn if I don't agree with Cracked. I understand him to be saying that this is a legitimate forum to ask about non-standard objectives, and for people to discuss even foolish plans or longshot attempts, without having somebody who doesn't know them or their abilities to "call them (idiotic) on it."

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.