mattp

WTF, Scott? I think it is RuMr who has been waxing eloquent about European rock climbing, not me. I have climbed in Europe, and I think it was pretty cool and in fact after I had grown bored by rock climbing around here, I found renewed excitement for the sport on the bolted limestone a thousand feet off the deck in the Verdon Gorge, but I don't think I have been spraying about that in this thread. Yes, I "admit" that bolting is becoming more problematic. I don't think I ever denied it. I just don't think that the end of the world is approaching - or at least I don't think that Armagheddon lies at Exit 38.

Scott- In the mythical golden years that Cassidy thinks were so cool there was a heavy concentration of routes in places like the Gunks, and nearly every crack line at Index had an aid line if it had not by then been free climbed, but the importance of approaching rock climbs in sandals is definitely a modern fashion and I don't think that when it comes to face climbs there were any routes anywhere in the U.S. as closely packed as your average crag at Vantage and Exit 38. Personally, I like things to be spread out a little bit, and I enjoy longer climbs rather than 80 foot overgrown boulder problems. I also believe that we would have fewer problems with offending other area users or land managers if our climbs were further from trails and roads and generally more out of sight.

Figger Eight- I agree with you that visual impact is a big deal. Other impacts associated with modern route development practices are also serious issues - like the way in which modern climbers seem to want to have 50 routes all on top of each other and they want them to be within 50 feet of a trail - preferably within 50 feet of the car. This results in crowding at the base, the areas get ground to the dirt, and we get in the way of other users. You could easily name a lot of other issues. But we are focussed only on the validity of bolts - without any reference to setting or density or safety or anything else - because our friend Cassidy here only has one program and it has crashed.

I'm learning, but are you?

Dru - I looked up "concise" and "brevity" and they seem to include some reference to actual ideas and content. Unrelated one-line put downs are nowhere in the definition of either.

Maybe I can actually take a few moments to put some ideas together rather than just spray the first stupid comment that comes to mind.

By the way - now that we have identified the visual impact as the real substantial impact of bolts in as far as they affect anybody other than the climber on the route in question, I'd put in a plug here for powder coated bolt hangers.

There may have been some problems identified by hikers in las Vegas, Dru, but if some idiot sport climbers put up a line of bolts immediateliy above a hiking trail I would be one of those climbers who would join them in protesting. For the most part, at nearly all climbing areas in the country, this has not been an issue that was raised by non-climbers. And we talked about that Bend cave a month ago when yo umade the same statement and it was pointed out that CHALK was the problem there that led to the closure, not bolts.

Scott - do you really have friends that can see bolts on Snow Creek Wall from the trail? That is some serious eyesight. I can see rappel slings on a tree or flake from the trail, but when someone replaces them with two bolts and some chain I can't see them.

I'm with you on the self-centered and self-serving nature of many climbers, Scott, but most non-climbers see nothing wrong with bolts -- the people who get bent out of shape about this issue are almost exclusively climbers. And pretty much the only time it ever becomes an issue for land managers is when some climbers get into a row over it. That doesn't mean it is not a real issue, but your statement here is damn near 100% wrong. Like RuMR says - some of the peripheral impacts associated with sport climbing are real issues to folks other than climbers, but the bolts themselves are generally not.

No, Alpine Tom. Very few of the route reports that are criticized have much or any chesbeating element at all but, even where they do, the main problem with chestbeating route reports is that the chestbeating police think they need to dump on the chestbeater. The sad reality here is that these chestbating police are for the most part the biggest chestbeaters on this board, when you really look at who says and does what around here.

Actually, Mr. Fox, I think someobody else made a similar point to yours but with much more vinegar in their tone. The route reports forums are intended to be a place to discuss (among other things) what we like/don't like about climbs in our region - and I don't think a comment such as that one would be much of a problem if offered in proper context or with a modicum of respect for the initial poster. I don't remember the exact thread, though, and I'm sure opinions would vary as to whether that one or any other comment in any route reports thread was good or bad. My point is not that yours (if it was yours) or any other of the responses that I described was out of line -- I was making a comment on the general atmosphere.

It was recently argued that nobody has ever trashed a beginners route report and that there is nothing negative in the culture of this board that would discourage less experienced climbers from posting here. I disagree. We recently discussed the Mount Hood report where the guy noted he got a snowcat ride and was flamed for it, and I think we already discussed the several-page assault of Scott for reporting that he skied whatever it was - 70 degrees? - at Stevens Pass. Also, I look back at the reports of Chair Peak from this summer and I note that while I have deleted the snidest of comments, what is left still gives the very clear impression that a simple climb of The Tooth is not worthy. Every single thread contains references to "I soloed it" or "it is really a good climb in the winter" or "I climbed it in three hours car-to-car" or whatever. Similarly, somebody reports an attempt of Silver Star (a 150 foot class III scramble) and the response is "you should have run up Burgundy" (a 5.8 6-pitch rock climb). For the West Ridge of Forbidden, one of the most popular routes in the state, there are few reports but all of those from this season deal with car-to-car speed or solo climbing the route and at least one of them contains the response "great -- another chestbeater report on the West Ridge". Similarly, when someone asked about the Sitkum Glacier not long ago (another of the State's most popular climbs) somebody responsd that it is a stupid route and he would NEVER climb it again because it was so boring. For Mount Adams, somebody asked whether he needed to bring crampons on the south ridge and he got a lot of good information but he also had somebody say "totally unnecessary – there is absolutely no exposure at all." What if somebody is proud of climbing The Tooth and thinks they weren't a complete idiot to go the wrong way around the pinnacle south of Pinneapple Pass and somebody else might want to know where NOT to go? Or the guy who attempted Silver Star - was he supposed to feel proud of his attempt on a scramble route when he was told he should have "run up" a technical rock climb in stead? Wouldn't this kind of thing tend to discourage people who are not strong technical climbers from posting their trip reports or even asking for beta? Is this why we have not a single route report from the Beckey Route this season? One report of a climb of the Emmons Glacier? Neither of these are "trivial" routes, in my book, and I bet there are lots of people who would like to read about them.

TTT is right to say don't plan on it. However, if you wait until a time when it hasn't snow for a week and a half, you stand a very good chance of finding hardpack most of the way though there'd still be some snowplowing somewhere, in all likelihood. And long high pressure periods like that probably happen on average of three or four times every winter.

Dru says he likes good trip reports but not bad ones. I agree. I bet everyone here agrees. But with the possible exception of the great Uncle Tricky, I bet we could debate for hours and hours about which trip reports we like and don't like. It is a shame people feel that they have to shoot down others for posting gaper reports or for chestbeating or whatever.

I do a lot of ski-mountaineering. More than once, I've skied up the lower slopes of Rainier and Hood and then carried my skis down because of a breakable wind crust which I was just too tired to deal with. For the overall easiest trip, I'd say wait for a time when it will be hardpack and walk. If you want to ski down Mount Raininer, that is quite another thing - but it generally won't be "easier" or safer than walking.

I don't like snowmobiles either. Its just that I think there are other ways to deal with it than bitch about how noisy, smelly etc. they are and brand them all as ignorant motorheads. I know that none of you have said this, but I frequently hear that idea expressed by cross country skiers and others of our persuasion and the attitude I saw expressed by Catibird in his initial post to this thread sounds as if he may well share that idea. Regarding Mount Saint Helens: Yes, I think it is a shame they don't seem to be able to follow the rules there and I would certainly favor stricter law enforcement (they aren't supposed to be able to go above timberline, isn't that right?). I also agree that they are noisy, smelly machines and I don't like to be near them -- that is one reason why I don't go to Mount Saint Helens very often -- or any other trailhead that happens to be a snowmobile unloading point for that matter. However, as to the real mountain areas of the State, not much is open to snowmobiling. Regarding Volcano's: Of the volcano's in Washington, why not go to Mount Rainier, or Glacier Peak? Yes, I know they have been seen on Adams, though not very often, so I don't mention this one. But I don't think you will ever even hear one from Glacier Peak or Rainier, and you won't share even one foot of the trail with them. On Mount Baker, I know they occasionally stray over to the Coleman Glacier, but they mostly stay where they are supposed to be - in that pie-shaped slice of the south side of the mountain. Climb via the Coleman Glacier, a beautiful winter and spring route, and you'll leave them behind as soon as you leave the summer trailhead (this may involve some distance of shared access). Regarding other areas: If you want to ski roadside areas at Snoqualmie Pass, you can head up Denny Creek, Alpental Basin, or up into Commonwealth Basin and you won't be bothered, but if you head up Gold Creek or Rocky Run, well .... bring your earplugs. Stevens Pass? Head up Skyline Ridge, Jim Hill Mtn. or Arrowhead or Mount Howard - I've never seen or heard them in those places. If you go up Smith Brook, you may find one that came over from Lake Wenatchee, but usually not. N. Cascades? Don't go to Washington Pass or to any of the areas close to Baker Lake. Just about the entire rest of the N. Cascades is fine. Mountain Loop Highway? They unload at the same place as you start out on skis when the road is blocked at Deer Creek, so it may be hard to get away from them -- that is unless you head up any of a dozen side creeks that don't have roads. On the north end of the loop, I didn't hear any noise when I was up on Sloan Peak on a beautiful day in February last winter - and we were only about a couple miles from the car via a quite reasonable trail. Yes, they stink. Yes, they have an obnoxious lobby and an unreasonable pull when it comes to Jellystone National Park policy or whatever. Yes, they should be required to use 4 stroke engines. Do they ruin my life in the mountains? No.

In my opinion, it is just about as easy to walk up to the Mountaineer Creek trailhead as to take a snowmobile up there - even with a pack. The road is packed just about all winter and by the time you mess with the snowmobile trailer and loading/unloading the sled, you could walk half way up there. Take skis so you can ride down.

Kassidy - This pathetic game of hiding behind a new avatar and pretending to be outraged when somebody accuses you of being Dwayner is just that - pathetic. As is being said here - if you want to identify yourself, you can. I don't think anybody is ever harassed or otherwise abused for identifying who they are on this bulletin board. I'm not sure they have ever been. Meanwhile, if you want to play games about who your are, you have absolutely nothing to complain about in this matter of being falsely accused of being the widely regarded Dwayner who so many people respect and appreciate.

JKassidy - Did you climb Mount Rainier in the winter in the '70's? The checkout process took over an hour. Did you go to the Climber's ranch in the '70's -- during the climbing season there wasn't even room to pull into the parking lot. At the same time, there were permits required, zone restrictions, and all kinds of regulations to comply with in the Tetons. Did you wait in line to climb The Nose in 1979? It took three days. Did you visit the 'Gunks in 1970? Parking was terrible AND YOU HAD TO BUY A CLIMBING PERMIT. These magical days before sport climbing when there were no crowds and no permit problems did not exist - at least not in your climbing lifetime or mine. There are more cars in I-5 during rush hour now, and you have to have a zone permit to park in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. Are you going to blame that on sport climbing, too?

In addition to suffering from myopia, is reading comprehension a problem for you, too? I noted that I think Indext Town Wall is probably less crowded now than in 1985 or whatever, nowhere did I argue that "climbing areas/camping areas are probably less crowded than they were and that we are currently dealing with a less restrictive permit system." If you want to make any kind of argument that has any meaning at all, you gotta do better than that.

I don't really know where you're coming from there, Catbird. I have very rarely had any problem with snowmobilers and I've rarely heard of anybody else having one. Yes, if you go over to Lake Wenatchee and want to have a logging road to yourself you will be out of luck and you will encounter them on the south side of Mount Baker once in a while, but overall I've found them to be very easy to avoid and those that I do encounter are usually (not always) considerate. I'd say they are not my kind of thing but I don't begrudge them their fun....

In the runup to this war, it seems to me that we heard more realistic and honest assessments of the situation from the Joint Chief's of Staff than we did from the White House. I guess I'm one of those people in the Harper's survey. I don't understand where AT is coming from when he says it has become "uncool" to pay respect to the military. I'd say that it has become uncool, if anything, to pay disrespect to the military.

While I have the rampant mistrust for all things warlike that AT refers to, I'd have to say that I also have a great respect and appreciation for those who have served in America's military. Maybe I need a history lesson, but "Rememberence Day" and "Veteran's Day" are not so fundamentally different in my mind -- I think about the wars we have fought, and in particular about the service of those who survived and died in those wars, as well as the non-war overseas assignments completed by our military personnel, and I am at once respectful and appreciative. As one who has never served and almost certainly never will, I don't have to support every specific war effort in order to value the service that has been provided by those who do. I'm not saying that "Veteran's Day" and "Remembrance Day" dont' have a different overall tone and message -- I'm saying that, for me - when I really think about it - the celebration and remembrance of those who died, and the dread of war, is not all that far removed from a respect and appreciation for those who lived or are living through a current one.

Ken Ford mentions "Henry" - I'd second that for being one messed up film! By the end of it, I actually thought Henry was a good guy compared to his buddy! For psycho weirdness, I'd say "Repulsion" by Roman Polanski is a under recognized bit of genious. It'll creep you out for sure.