mattp

Huh? You gonna go on a kayak trip without any booze?????? Actually, I would say that a stop at Duty Free is damn near mandatory -- not only for the booze but because it can be a major time-saver. If you are crossing when there is a line-up for the border, take the truck customs exit and hit the shoulder lane to drive past everybody waiting in line and pull into the store, make your deal, and then come back out and jump in line right before the booths.

The Monarch Icefield is about 200 miles NW of Vancouver. The peaks there are not made of the good granite found in the Waddington area, but it is remote and very scenic. It doesn't see much traffic up there; there is no guidebook.

I bought a 100m x 8mm rope about twenty years ago, thinking I'd use it for moderate alpine ice routes and the like. My theory was that we could lead out 100m on easy terrain, double it for any steeper climbing where I didn't want to lead on a single strand, and that if we could find another party with a 100m rope the raps on certain alpine descents would go really fast. As it turned out, I just about never used it and the one or two times that I did, I found the bulky coil and increased opportunity for major rope tangles to be much more trouble than it was worth. I agree with those who suggest that, for lots of reasons, longer is not better when it comes to mountaineering and alpine climbing. Yes, there are times when a longer rope allows you to run pitches together on a longer route and save time, but this is most ofen on a pure rock climb where there is likely to be relatively straight-up climbing without any screwing around. There is the occasional ice couloir or similar terrain where you could lead out 100m without running into undue complication, but on most mountain routes there is enough winding about involved, and I frequently move the belay less than a full rope length in order to facilitate routefinding discussions or to move the belayer to a location where they won't get beaned by the leader's dropping rocks and ice on them. I can't really remember the last time that I would have wanted to lead a 100m pitch.

Damn. I leave this board to do some work and I find I've been misunderstood. Waaaaaa. I did not say that bolts are not an issue to land managers, or at least I didn't mean to say that. What I meant to say was that the issues they generally worry about are very different than those that we climbers worry about and most land managers do not care whether somebody places bolts next to cracks or whether a given climb could be made safe with one bolt or one hundred. They are generally not worried abou the environemental impact of a tiny hole 3/8" by 2" being filled with metal, as much as they are worried about whether the bolts can be seen by other users who may complain about them, or whether a newly bolted area is going to draw lots of climbers and become a management issue, or whatever. I think the content of the discussion that you had with the ranger at Beacon Rock, RBW, that you cite to show how wrong I am, actually supports my position on this point. I am sure that someone will fire back an example of how some ranger at Josua Tree was incensed that a climber would bolt the beautiful face of What-the-f**K Rock in some pristine backcountry area, or whatever, but I don't think this kind of reaction is common among land managers; it is THE core issue for many climbers. And then I am chided by ChucK for noting that bolts did not ruin North Bend. In fact I said no such thing. I noted that one entire wall there was characterized by nothing but bolted climbs even though I knew of three lines on it that could be mostly or fully protected with crack gear. I did not say this was a good thing. What I said was that I did not think this could be taken as support for the idea that the proliferation of bolted cracks starts with belay anchors. * Bronco asks what is the central question of this thread when he questions why, if it is generally thought improper to place bolts next to cracks, we would make exceptions for certain bolts that we think might belong next to cracks. I think we have presented several situations here where the exception to the general rule is justified, and I don't think we need fear that these exceptions will swallow the rule, but obviously people take all different positions on these issues. *In actual fact, while I think someone HAS shown what can at best be termed "bad taste," I do not think the existence of three bolted crack pitches on WWI is a big crime against humanity -- but that is not the point that I made in my prior post and I certainly do not say that North Bend climbing areas can be cited as an example of how bolts are not a threat. Clearly, the proliferation of sport-bolting, particularly the practice of grid-bolting entire crags, and the acceptance of bolted cracks, DOES post some threat to traditional climbing. It is not something that I would want done at all, most, or even all that many of the crags in this state. I can tolerate it at Little Si, though. Hell, I even like climbing there and GregW, Neversummer and I climbed one of those bolted cracks just last week.

Kyle, you didn't ask this question but I would guess that somebody "relatively new to climbing" would not enjoy the traverse from the Maud/Jack col (some experienced climbers too, for that matter); I recommend going that way but it IS a mess of loose rock with some significant exposure so you may want to go the long way around.

A rulemaking committee for the US Forest Service also enacted a fixed anchor ban that applied briefly to all National Forests. It IS an important issue. But your average district ranger is more concerned about whether or not his rangers are going to be called in on rescues, or whether they are going to get complaints from other user groups or about other ways in which the use of bolts will directly affect their daily operations than they are about some ethical question of whether or not it is "moral" to permanently alter the rock.

Does the fact that bolts have been banned in one wilderness area that comes to your mind right away indicate that this is a big issue with land managers in general? You will find some rangers here in the west who dislike bolts, as well, and it IS becoming an issue that is increasingly on their radar screen. However, I still think it is much more of an issue with climbers, and not surprisingly so, because we are so much more intimately involved with the crags. I think it is fair to say that irate climbers have brought the issue to the attention of the land managers more than the other way around.

The suggestion that allowing bolted belay/rappel stations leads to bolting cracks for pro is an example of misinformation that is often brought into the bolting debate. I don't think history, in Washington at least, has shown this to be true but people bring this idea up periodically. Another example of what I perceive as "misinformation" is the suggestion that land managers don't want to see bolts in the rock. In general, I think history has shown that most land managers don't care about bolts at all unless they lead to an invasion by hundreds of climbers and their dogs, or unless they lead to some other problem such as, in Boulder Canyon, police problems stemming from bolt wars. Climbers care very deeply about bolts; most land managers really don't.

I've climbed it in late September or early October and it was a snowclimb then.

It is a matter of style. Many people feel that placing gear on lead is part of the challenge of rock climbing and that you dumb-down the climb if you eliminate the need to place pro, whereas they don't think it is an imporant part of the challenge to be able to set up and manage a gear-only belay. Also, in the case of rap stations at least, some prefer the lower visual impact of bolts and chain whereas others think the less permanent installation of a sling around a tree or threaded through a piton is better.

I'm sorry you don't like my tone, Bronco, but I just feel rather strongly that there are is a lot of misinformation out there when it comes to bolting ethics. Don't misunderstand me just because I go into a tirade, though: you have just as much right as I do to express your opinion on ethical issues or any other issue whether you have been climbing for thirty days or thirty years. Whether or not I have a "stellar" reputation has nothing to do with it; we're talking about crags that belong to all of us.

Bronco, your friends are full of crap and they lack common sense if they think that an acceptance of the placement of belay anchors is likely to be mistaken as an acceptance of bolting cracks for pro. This would be particularly true at Cathedral Ledge in New Hampshire, but even if we look at the most heavily bolted climbing areas in Washington - Vantage and North Bend, it does not appear that bolted belay anchors have been a dangerous step toward the bolting of cracks. At Vantage, many of the crack climbs have had bolted belay anchors for years, and I believe there is only one climb that has had the crack set up with bolt pro since then - red M & M's or something, part of which was formerly protected with RP's and such (shallow RP's in Basalt ). And Vantage is a place where the rock does not hold gear very well, as illustrated by the death of Goran Kropp. At Exit 38, everything is bolted whether there is a crack or not. At Little Si, there are a couple of classic crack climbs that have had bolt anchors at the top for over 15 years (Mambo Jambo and the wide crack next to Goddess) and there are some other "gear climbs" nearby along with one that has had bolts added next to crack pro (Carpet Bombing). Also at Little Si, there are a couple that were bolted at the same time the belay anchors were added - when the area was first developed (Reptiles and Amphetimines and another nearby) and there is one climb that has had bolts added in the years since the bolt anchors were placed there (Son of Jesus). These bolted crack climbs are on WWI, where every other climb on the entire wall is exclusively bolt- protected. To state that allowing bolted anchors leads to bolted cracks is wrong. Allowing sport climbing is what leads to bolted cracks and, in the case of Little Si at least, even the hardcore sport climbers have had the sense to leave some cracks unbolted. Where they have bolted cracks, it has not really proven to be the pattern that they first added belay bolts and then came back to bolt the crack itself. I agee that there is not a clear need to bolt every belay station but the question of whether any particular station would be better bolted or not depends on many factors, and in my opinion the availability of natural pro is a primary consideration but not the only one. At Lower Town Wall, for example, I applaud those who have replaced the former heaps of webbing that was slung around dubious combinations of rusty pins, old bolts, chockstones, dead trees, or whatever, with two-bolt belay stations equipped with chain. Twenty years ago, you used to look from the parking lot and see sling anchors all over the cliff, and now you see almost none. By adding the chains, I don't think the quality of the climbing, the "dignity" of the rock, or the sense of adventure one feels when they lead any given pitch on that wall has been diminished very much when compared to the resulting improvement to the whole aesthetics of the place and climbers' safety. I'd sure be against it if someone decided they were going to go up there and pull out all bolts that could feasibly be eliminated with the use of crack gear.

Wind, don't listen to David and Ned. Sure, they're right that the prudent thing to do would be to scope out the descent from Washington before you try a traverse, and all of us agree that travel in the Olmpics is more pleasant when the scree is covered with snow, but if you want to try the traverse, go for it! Its beautiful up there, and by next Spring you'll be interested in something else. I don't think there is anything death-defying about descending into Jefferson Creek and climbing back out and, as Ned points out, there is a trail all the way down the standard route that will get you back to the road. In case you want to be more prudent, here's the guidebook for "route 1-A" on Washington (note, however, that it is incorrect in so far as the "route" actually starts out going up and left around a subsidiary ridge that appears prominent in the drawing as pyramidal feature above the notation "1A"): This file should print better, though you may need to download it and then reopen it in something like photoshop or paint to get it to size properly. The file is 700k and will download slowly: temporary file

Check out "Blinded by the Right" by Brock. It's a NY Times bestseller about the right wing muckraking smear machine. It is not terribly well-written, but paints a picture never-the-less.

I'm getting to read "Bias: a CBS Insider exposes how the media distorts the news." It was recommended by Fairweather, so you can guess which way the author thinks the news is distorted. If the weather is bad next week, I'll give you all a book report in the spray forum.

Bugaboos!!!!!!!!!!!

Is that true? What about Ram Creek? I guess Dewer Creek is outside the "rocky mountain trench." What is this world coming to?

I agree with these statements almost entirely. I would re-write your paragraph as follows: Although you may believe I am tainted by the fact that I tend to agree with "the doctor," I would have to say, however, that I don't think he has ever been any more provocative than lots of cc.com posters around here. To suggest that his inflammatory posts have caused him to deserve being subjected to threats of violence is, in my view, "over the top" (even if you then backtrack from that suggestion and say you withdraw your support for those threats).

Fairweather, Consider the very real possibility that there are lots of people on this site who find your posts to be pretty consistently "over the top" as well. You are not quite the smartass that we see in DFA, but you do get pretty far out there as compared to the cc.com mainstream. Would you have people who are angered by your rhetoric applaud the person who threatens you? RBW - You are right, they can get all bent out of shape about "threats" that are not real, like one once sent by an eight year old kid I once knew. They have to take that kind of stuff seriously. In the case of a political cartoon that was published in a widely circulated medium, however (and I'm only guessing that is what you are referring to), the reacion may have been as much political as a matter of protecting the president. -Matt

I could be wrong, too, Fairweather, but I believe that in a rhetorical discussion such "encouragement" that you complain about can only be taken for the rhetoric that it is and I bet that even if you forwarded that post on to the Secret Service they would likely take no action on it. Should someone seek to file Federal felony charges, I would predict acquittal. Mr. Adamson's personal threats, however, are much more believeable.

Greg - As much as some of the right thinking people around here may be surprised to hear this, I consider myself irreverant and I do not like politically correct dogmatists. Thus, I will sometimes use certain offensive words which refer to mean spirited persons of the female gender, or refer to racial stereo-types or make jokes that are in "bad taste" of whatever - in private conversations where I believe my remarks are not going to be misunderstood as anything more than irreverent banter. However, there is a difference between that and posting the same comments on a public bulletin board. I think it has been a long time since, in Seattle at least, public expressions of racial hatred have been generally considered acceptable. To borrow a line from some of those who post from the right, if you don't like it you can find another bulletin board (referring to those who keep saying that if you don't like America, you should move to Iran or whatever). I enjoyed Sisu's racist joke, but that does not mean I think it belongs here.