mattp

If you operate under the assumption that the only thing that matters is whether or not something has been bolted, you will find the evidence you seek. No argument there. Otherwise the only concrete "on-the-ground" difference you cited was increased crowding in the N. Cascades. As far as overall environmental damage caused by hoards of climbers, I'm not sure the North Cascades as a whole or the Enchantments or most other areas around the state are in fact all that much worse off than they were 25 years ago. For example, there are fewer stomped out areas in the upper Enchantments now, I think, and the old climber's trail up the creek below the North side of Sherpa and Mount Stuart may have been more obvious in 1980 because recent trends have been to approach Stuart via Ingalls Lake. Some trails are more hammered by climbers who follow Jim Nelson's list of "select climbs" (example Black Peak) but other areas have been largely abandoned as some of the old logging roads hav been gated or washed away and some old trails have fallen into disrepair. The net effect is almost certainly that there are more climber impacted areas in the Washington wilderness, but it is not as if it is a whole new issue or a whole new level of magnitude. Nobody or almost nobody hacks at the trees to have a campfire at a subalpine lake anymore -- and they definitely DID do that in 1975. As to crowding itself, it is true there are more people out there now -- there are more people living in the Puget Sound region and correspondingly there are more people in and out of town. But I encountered three other parties on the West Ridge of Forbidden Peak when I was there in July, 1981, and one of those parties was a group of 16 climbers from Simon Frasier University and one of them tied their dog at the base of the couloir like it was a sport climb so we had to listen to their hound bark all day -- I doubt there was a more busy day up there this season. Index probably had MORE climbers on any given day in the summer of 1980 than it does now. The west side of Mount Rainier has become wilder while Liberty Ridge has probably seen three times as much traffic. Exit 38 has a lot of climbers, but does that really bother you? As to the lack of courage or conviction or proper Dwayner approved values that you complain about, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Yes, I'd agree that there are places with too many bolts but if your idea of a bold and respectable ascent was some runout deathfest like the Bachar Yarian and you think that is better than a modern route like "Crying Time," which has perhaps as many as ten times the number of bolts on very similar terrain, so be it. (I haven't done either route, so I can't say for sure, but I bet most of the rest of us would use the word "dubious" to describe the Bachar Yarian, not Crying Time). Few of the rock climbs you used to enjoy in Washington in 1975 have had any new pro bolts added (for rappel stations, I believe bolts with chains are more desirable than heaps of slings on bushes and flakes though I am sure you will disagree), and I bet the number of alpine routes that have been soiled as you so decry is even less. Yes, people take cell phones with them in the mountains these days and people who learn to climb at the gym have different expecations and goals than those who cut their teeth on Mt. Cruiser. But read the route reports on this bulletin board sometime and you will see: mountain climbing and adventure rock climbing are alive and well.

I don't think anybody said that climbing was categorically BETTER than it was in the great golden ages that you celebrate, but you said it had categorically gotten WORSE.

Take haert, Minx. After a brief rise to 10,000 feet, the freezing level is going back down and the North Face is going to start shaping up --- SOON.

Erik- I think you too will readily call one form of climbing or one particular climber better or more worthy than another. You argue here in this thread that "it is all good," but if somebody does or says something you perceive as silly or misguided you have no problem mentioning that fact. Cassidy overstates his case, me thinks, if he says it is horribly more crowded in the Cascades these days than back in the golden age of 1978. I also believe he is some kind of nostalgia freak when he suggests that the climber's tactics or goals of yore were any less "dubious" than those of today, but there are some differences in approach today and many of today's climbers are indeed less concerned over the impact of such things as bolting, and many are not as bold when it comes to going somewhere without a satellite phone or bivvy gear. Yes, he ought to get out climbing more and he might see that there are some good things about what is going on - even at his biggest nightmare of a crag Vantage - but like ChrisT said: lighten up (at least until he starts into the "you are all pussies" tirade). I think it's more fun to debate the ideas than to call folks names.

Dwayner lives.

Cassidy- I don't know when you started climbing - back in the days when Jedediah Smith first went to Smith Rock, perhaps, but crowds have always been a part of climbing as long as I can remember. Parking at the Gunks was a big problem in 1970. The Climber's Ranch in the Tetons was probably more crowded in the mid '70's than now. Camp 4 in the Valley was also a busy place by the mid ‘70's and you had to "take a number" and wait three days to get onto the Nose route. Yes, there are more climbers now, but they all go to Exit 38 and to Vantage, places where you don't want to go anyway. Enhancing the wilderness? When I was a young pup I camped in shelters that were built all along the Appalacian Trail in the 1940's. The hut at the Bugaboos was built in 1970 or so. Bolt ladders first started appearing in Yosemite when???? Hell - it was David Brower who used bolts and other iron hardward to climb Shiprock in - what was it - the late '40's? Permits and Fees? As long as I've been climbing, these were a part of the climbing experience. The Tetons had climbing permit requirements by the 1960's, I think, and it was even more difficult to get a permit to climb Mount Rainier in the winter in the '70's than it is now -- you had to show up during office hours so they could inspect your gear. The Enchantments permits started when - late ‘70's? Park entrance fees have been collected as long as I can remember. Yes, there are now a new set of fees for parking on logging roads, and Mount Rainier now collects a "rescue fee," but you know what? The major problem that I have with those programs is that they are singling out climbers and hikers to pay fees rather than placing the burden equally on all users and abusers of the park or forest lands. I also believe believe public lands should be maintained for public use (recreational visits are something I think are public use) rather than private profit (e.g. resource extractive industries that are subsidized by the government). More climbers, and specifically more climbers willing to organize and engage in political activities, could be a GOOD thing here. Dubious mountaineering goals? Is it any more "dubious" for Distel to climb some heinous boulder problem using only his shoes and a chalk bag than it was for some Yosemite Valley hardman to spend over 100 days fixing ropes, pounding stove legs into cracks, drilling holes, and dragging a cart up and down El Capitan? Or for expeditions using literally hundreds of porters to carry a military-style expedition to Everest Base and for high altitude sherpas to virtually drag our heroes of yore to the top of the mountain so they could claim the first ascent or the first American ascent or whatever? Guided trips on Everest? So what. I have no issue with that, and I'd also say that back in the historic "golden age" of himalayan climbing it was the old boy's network that got you on an expetition - not talent or drive - and I'm not sure that aspect of the situation is really that different except, perhaps, the "old boys" in the American Alpine Clubhouse in Manhattan have been replaced by advertising folks who work for the North Face. Yes, times have changed and it is not all for the better. But I think you should get out more, and you might find that the world is still OK out there. Really - not all that much has changed. Climbers are having fun, and some of them care about environmental issues or stylistic matters that you believe in while others don't.

Way better than early season ice, is late season brush:

Right on, Forrest. I generally stay away from these "fallen heroes" threads but Mr. Manfredi was indeed the impressive outdoorsman that he was for the exact reason that you stated: he was out there for the right reason -- because he loved being out there. His enthusiasm was obvious and he seemed equally able to appreciate and laud other people's accomplishments as his own; never once did I get the idea that he was taking risks in order to show off or impress other people.

Actually, I was trying to make a simple point: a SRENE anchor system built by somebody who doesn't know how to place gear is a serious hazard. I think the order of the terms referred to in the "SRENE" acronym is illustrative of what I am talking about: the first point in "SRENE" is "strong." In setting a belay, I look for a location where I can get a bomber piece of gear first, then I look for a way to get redundancy, then I look at how to equalize them, and the use of "no extension" is a good idea but again, of even lesser import. Do you REALLY disagree with my simple statement that strength is the most important attribute in a belay anchor? I did not say, imply, or hint that - unless you select some part of my argument and take it out of context. I said, repeatedly, that building redundant equalized anchors is a very important skill, but that even more important is knowing how to place good nuts and cams in the first place.

Most of the new climbers I meet are pretty cool, and I have no problem with the fact that there are more climbers today than there were thirty years ago. The larger market means that the gear has come a long way, and the with the media attention and crowds, we are seeing some real cool parks like Smith that are being run like Disneyland for climbers. The increased athleticism that has been brought about by gym climbing, too, has led me to think more seriously about training and technique, and this has helped me enjoy the sport (though I mostly think about training but don't do it). Yes, it is not all good and I share some of the sense of loss about the old days when Smith was relatively pristine and there were only a dozen bolts on the entire Salathe Wall - but I'll take the good with the bad.

Murray, you apparently suffer from the same reading comprehension problem that I accused Lammy of. I did not say one need not learn to build a proper anchor, nor did I say that one should not address that subject of belay anchors until AFTER they know how to place gear, and I did not advocate teaching your students that "a single SLCD is an acceptable anchor, backed up." We're talking about emphasis here, and I believe it is indeed putting the cart before the horse to teach someone how to sling pieces together and equalize them before they know how to place those pieces in the first place. As has been stated by others in this thread: yes, they may learn how to tie a doorknob to a chair leg and equalize it, but what use is that in the real world of the crag? In addition to reading comprehension, you may need to brush up on logic: where I said emphasizing anchor construction before placement of anchors would be putting the cart before the horse, I was not necessarily saying that one cannot learn anything about anchor construction before they are an expert in placement of gear. And indeed, slinging doorknobs to chairs is kind of fun. You are correct that an instructor needs to present the "right" way of doing things and that it takes experience for a climber to learn where they can "cut the margin." I would always show any beginner how to equalize their anchors and I'd suggest that they ought to learn how to build a SRENE anchor before they head up a multipitch route. But I'd also tell them there is no mystery about it. Put in two or preferably three pieces, sling them together so that all two or three slings are snug and pointing in roughly the direction of an anticipated downward pull, and converge right at your waist when you sit down. If at all possible, set an anchor so that you are tied down to the belay ledge as well. On any popular beginners' rock climb that I know of , that is truly all you need to do. And Schlanschmecker is right: much more important is for them to get in the habit of picking a belay ledge that is big and roomy and where they aren't going to be pulled off the edge if there is an extra 6" of stretch in their chain. But again, where I say "A is not true" I am not necessarily saying that "not A is true." Where I say it is imbalanced to tell new climbers that they have to attend multiple anchor-building clinics and read John Long's book and practice building mock anchors on the ground and analyze them for days before they can lead - IF THEY KNOW HOW TO PLACE SOLID GEAR - I am NOT saying that you can't teach them what a SRENE anchor is until they can pass Mattp's test for gear placement acceptability. The reason I think this is an important point is that I see lots of new climbers who build elaborate SRENE anchor set ups when they are belaying off of three 3/8" brand new bolts. Just this past weekend, I saw where someone didn't feel safe with two brand new bolts on a slab, but ran an extra eight feet of bright colored webbing up to the first pro bolt on the pitch above so that they could safely rappel. WTF? I have a buddy who spends twenty minutes at every belay, clipping and reclipping and analyzing the thing before he can belay me up a 5.4 pitch when he is sitting next to a 6" tree. And I've seen way too many beginners at Castle Rock who have read the speed climbing tips in Climbing Magazine and who pass right by the belay ledge because they want to climb to the end of their 60 meter rope, and then set some rediculous hanging belay from three pieces put in the sand behind a pile of loose blocks. The guy who hangs in space from three pieces of choss is probably the same guy who thought they had to leave eight feet of bright colored webbing behind because he's been taught about SRENE but he doesn't know what a strong gear placement looks like. Learning to place solid gear is key - and far more important than learning to build some beautiful macrame. I'm not "in the mainstream" as you put it, and I disagree with a lot of what the "mainstream" has to say on many things. I wear cotton in the mountains, and I in fact would advocate learning to trad climb before going to the gym (I believe climbers learn some bad habits using the gris gris and learning to pull on overhanging plastic). Again, I can hear the alarms going off in your head because you may think I am saying that you should tell your students not to wear anything but cotton in the mountains or that you should not let them go to the gym: I'm not. I realize there are many different means to the same ends. As to my interpretation of the premise of the initial post, I think I interpreted it correctly: you said that you thought the fact that SLCD's can pivot makes them less trustworthy for an anchor. when you wrote that "I believe the problem is not with Camalots, rather with rigging any primary anchor only with SLCD's. Because SLCD's can pivot under a shockload, I have always been terrified of rigging a anchor exclusively from said units." In my opinion, the ability of an SLCD to pivot and still hold securely is exactly the reason why they are preferable in some situations. Like others, I like "bomber" nut placements because they are as strong as the rock itself and not reliant upon springs at all, but SLCD's have their advantages and one of them is that in average placements they are more omnidirectional than a nut.

I'm waiting for Colin's trip report.

Serious Nelly! It is NUTS to think that the defense contractors or the energy industry or anybody from Halliburton had anything to do with all of this, either. Only a true conspiracy theory freak would think our government officials would make decisions and award lucrative contracts that would benefit their friends and former employers.

ChucK - I believe that I WOULD travel to Indonesia at this point in time, though I haven't read the latest State Department warnings. If you travel as a backpacker, staying in low-end cabana's that are perfectly nice, I bet you wouldn't have any worry of a problem. When I was in Thailand, they warned us NOT to take first-class busses and trains because these get robbed more often and the fancier resorts, too, are much more of a target for terrorists or kidnappers.

Peter- Every time one of us evil liberals talks about what crooks we have in the White House, we are told "the dems are just as bad." You may be right about that, and I'd have to agree that the Democratic politicos are a cynnical and self-serving bunch as well - though I think Bush and Co. have taken it to a whole new height of unabashed looting. However, the title of your thread "since you lefties keep bringing up Clinton?????" Isn't it the right wing commentators and right-of-center politicians who keep harping on how all of our current problems are Clinton's fault and isn't Hillary a bitch and so on? I don't think it is the "lefties" who keep bringing up Clinton.

Yes, Saber, those cracks over there can be pretty good and they are so parallel sided that many of them really do force you to learn to jam. If that Trapese wall is cleaner up top than some areas, it'd be a good place to start. However, at Vantage it is for the most part more approaching 5.9 before you really do any actual jam crack climbing. On lower angle rock such as at Leavenworth, there actually are 5.4 to 5.6 jam cracks.

Vantage has some OK cracks, but I don't think I'd recommend it for top-rope crack climbing. Is Trapese Wall somehow not plagued with the typical piles of deadly flakes at the top of most Vantage crack climbs?

Head for Thailand/Nepal/Indonesia. You can easily spend 6 months in Asia and have it be cheaper than staying home - including the airfare.

Icicle Creek canyon, Leavenworth.

Actually, Lammy, you can take that blank for my having hit the wrong key when I took a phone call. As you obviously know, I don't teach climbing and I haven't taken a class recently. That is why I used the word "apparently." Earlier in this thread it was stated that anchor building is a "complex" topic. It has also been argued that it is more important to learn to build an anchor than to learn to place gear -- flat out. In another thread, about two months ago, we had a similar debate when somebody stated that they knew how to place good solid gear but they didn't think they were qualified to climb Moscow at Smith Rock because they hadn't been trained in how to "build an anchor." We keep hearing how important learning to place a "SRENE" anchor is - probably on average twice a month on this site. If this focus on anchor-building isn't coming from the Mountaineers and the Mazama's, perhaps it is coming from the climbing magazines. Or maybe it is all John Long's fault. You, in your ultimate knowledge of all things climbing, are probably qualified to tell me where the idea comes from. But the point is, it is like worrying about giving a trad climber a dynamic belay (remember our past over this? We can argue about it until we turn blue but I'm going to stick to my guns here until I get bored or I get another phone call - and I DO have to get some work done this afternoon). I believe there is some disinformation out there when it comes to the importance of SRENE anchors and the potential for SRENE anchor construction to mitigate the danger of not knowing how to place gear. For just about any TRADITIONAL rock climbing situation I can think of - learning to place gear is FAR FAR FAR more important than learning the best way to equalize everything at a belay station.

You lost me there, Catbird. As you know, I don't place much emphasis on kill-o-newtons but a single bomber camelot placed in a construction where a nut would fit is more than sufficient for a belay anchor in my book and the second one that I place is for a back-up. I sure as hell don't bother equalizing them at every belay -- especially if it is on a ledge rather than hanging in space somewhere.

The point here is that, in my view, the importance of building an anchor has been overemphasized in recent climbing instructional settings. Apparently, lots of instructors out there make out like "building an anchor" is some complex thing, some teach their students that it is important to equalize and doubly redundant everthing when one piece may be a ten inch tree, and some people get the wrong idea that placing multiple anchors will make you safe when you don't know how to place gear in the first place. If you would read this thread and think about what I've been saying for even as much as thirty seconds, you wouldn't think I was advocating learning to place gear first, and only then talking about "building an anchor." Like you said:

duh.

Nobody here is suggesting that you learn one without the other, troubleski -- the discussion started with a statement that sounded like the point was that "passive gear is safer for omnidirectional purposes than cams" (completely incorrect in my view) and then we turned to the question of whether it is more important for a beginning climber to learn how to set a "SRENE" anchor or how to actually place gear. I say emphasizing "SRENE" before learning how to put in the gear in the first place is putting the cart before the horse, and I'd perfectly happily climb just about any crag route around with someone who knew how to place gear but had no knowledge of "proper" SRENE techniques.