mattp

You can't dismiss the laws of physics, Attitude, but the "laws of physics" as you state them do not necessarly include all of the relevant factors. Your calculation of the rate of fall is only correct if you assume no friction and no resistence from a climber trying not to fall. If the holds on an overhanging wall suddently blow, your victim may fall at formula speed. However, if he or she desparately tries to cling to a lower hold after missing a reach, or if they fall on terrain that is not quite so steep and slide down the rock or maybe bounce off a couple lower footholds, they will not reach the formula speed quite so fast.

Greg- Gun control may be an issue where the media distorts things though, even so, the distortion may not come from a liberal bias as much as a tendency toward sensationalism. Certainly I would agree that you are much more likely to see stories about people being shot than about how people were not shot, and therefore the dangers of having guns in the home are going to be highlighted more than the safety presented by their being there, but this is different from a deliberate attempt to slant the news for a political purpose. I am not convinced that any purportedly rational analysis of the incidence of in-home shootings or shootings by friends or family members vs. the numer of crimes averted is misstated -- are you?

Consider the Fischer Chimneys on Mount Shuksan. It is highly scenic, and has everything that you described. The Sulphide might not be a bad choice, either, and if you don't mind having to bash a few bushes, the North Face or the White Salmon might be OK, though at this time of year they will probably present greater ice climbing challenges than you describe (I don't mind crawling through the jungle but, in my opinion, the bush below the N. side of the mountain is not as bad as commonly reported on this site).

At the suggestion of Fairweather, I took a book about the liberal media on a recent climbing trip. As it turned out, we had enough tent time that I actually read the thing: Bias by Bernard Goldberg. I had been assured that this was a well-written book and that the author makes an "airtight" case; instead what I found was a poorly written book that showed no signs that it had been very well researched and in which at least a third of the discussion was devoted to whining about his former employers and waging a personal attack on Dan Rather. There was almost no attempt to undertake a substantive analysis of whether any patterns in news reporting actually supported the author's thesis (that the media consistently slants the news to the left), and even on an anecdotal basis there were not very many real-life examples of the bias that he was complaining about. Don't get me wrong: I agree with many of Goldberg's complaints about how the media tends to favor sensationalism over substance and that they are more concerned about marketing and ratings than they are about presenting important news stories, and I agree that politically correct thought-minders do us no favors in the discussion of any political or social issue. I don't know, but I am also willing to believe he may be correct that, more-often-than-not, individual news reporters may be more liberal on certain social issues than the "average American." However, I believe he far from made his case that the "liberal media establishment" has slanted everything toward the left. Look at the way the press has handled G. W. Bush, for example; or the Enron business; or Israel. On a more local basis, look at how we have been informed about Sound Transit or the WTA riots. Is there really a consistent liberal slant to the news, when it comes to news that matters? Has anyone else read this book?

Just don't take me to the sport crag. First of all, I'll whine about how steep it is and, second, I've been reeling in the belay for so many years that I just might do the wrong thing. Old habits die hard.

I don't think it is rediculous to discuss the merits of reeling in. Like I said above, if you are ever belaying me, I want you to reel me in when I fall unless I am falling from an overhang where there is nothing to hit. Thus, as has been said already, there is some judgment involved and a discussion of the pros and cons is not a bad thing. I don't put much stock in the numeric calculations, though, just as I dismissed similar mathematical speculation in discussing fall-factors or a prior discussion of whether double rope technique may foster a less dynamic belay. It is not a bad thing to try to quantify or rationalize the discussion, but the simple fact is that, when you get out on the cliff, there are many more factors than a simple equation might suggest. When I am leading, I try to put in a piece right off the belay - a good piece that is "omnidirectional" if possible, not because of a fall-factor issue and not so much because I am afraid that higher pieces might zip, but because one look at the situation usually suggests that it is easier for my belayer to set up to brace against a pull in a single direction and I want to know that the pull will come in the direction they are prepared for. My point is not to dismiss the discussion above, but to suggest that it is often much more intuitive, and much more obvious, than numerical calculations and point-counterpoint might suggest. On just about anything other than a sport climb, if I see my partner start to fall I'll be reeling in the rope - even if only a half of a pull - and he or she will be glad to fall eight feet instead of ten, or ten instead of fifteen, or whatever. And, by the way, I believe I might well be able to take in 3 reels and then be ready to catch the climber, using an ATC, in a situation where the fall lasted 1.3 seconds. Maybe not, but my point here is that after you have belayed falling climbers for a while, you get preetty good at it.

Actually, Phil, what I am referring to IS the practice of reeling in the rope. I generally do not want my belayer to be running backwards, because they might trip over something or fall off the belay ledge, either of which might well result in their dropping me. I would agree that thinking about the "what if's" is a good idea, though, and running backwards or jumping up while catching a fall are probably more often than not best applied at a crag with flat ground beneath it. Run a search for the prior discussion.

Yes, but I don't call most of Index Town Wall or Castle Rock "slab" climbing.

RuMR, I was somewhat convinced by the prior discussion that what you are suggesting (longer falls are safer) may be good for sport-climbing falls (i.e. bolt pro and overhanging rock). However, where the rock is not overhanging, and especially when I am worried that my pro may not be all that good, I'd still rather take the shorter fall. I would guess that if you look at any statistical analysis of climbing accidents outside of the gym, and even if that includes sport climbing areas, there are more injuries caused by the climber hitting things on the way down than the smack down caused by the short catch.

We have had this discussion on this board before, and it was clear that opinions on the matter may vary, but I believe that in almost all cases I would generally rather have my belayer reel in whatever slack they can. I say this because I am always fearful of hitting things on the way down unless of course I am falling off an overhang, and in that case I am just plain fearfull of falling. In the most recent discussion that I recall, one cc.com poster made a case for how it is better not to reel in the rope, and he even advocated what in effect amounts to letting some rope OUT by having the belayer remain unanchored and then jumping up just as they make the catch in an effort to add some additional slack or cushion that would absorb some of the shock to be placed on the climber and to the top piece of gear, and which would reduce the force of a rapid swing back in toward the rock. I would rather have my belayer reel in as much as they can because I have never heard of an injury stemming from the shock of a short catch (I'm sure it happens), and I think that the danger of hitting footholds or ledges or gear on the way down is greater than the danger that a short catch may increase the severity of the slam back into the rock -- unless perhaps you are falling from overhanging rock (around here, that is most common at the gym or at some sport crags). I am not overly optimistic, either, that a dynamic belay will allow my sketchy TCU with only two cams in the rock to catch me when it would have failed otherwise. I'd say that, on average, most non-overhanging bits of rock offer the possibility that the falling leader will hit something on the way down even if they place every possible piece of pro, and I have never heard of an instance where trying to reel in slack caused the belayer to drop the climber because they were not "locked off."

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.