mattp

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.

That gully you describe, Wind, may well be the one I am thinking of. And, yes, you do climb down several hundred feet. There are possible traverse routes that stay closer to the crest, but you said you didn't like exposure all that much and these involve rock scrabling or even outright rock climbing and rappels and sketchy anchors and such. I have been accross the basin between Washington and Ellinor in late season like this, and that gully (like the one at the other end) was a dirty mess if I recall correctly, but otherwise just fine. I think the gully at the Washington end is a little steeper, or maybe it is the place where you cross an intervening ridge, and I remember some dirt over rock that kind of sucked for perhaps 30 feet. You said you have plenty of common sense, so I figure you'd be cautious enough to turn around and go back where you came from if you ran into something you didn't like. The old guidebook may be out of print, but you can look at it in the Mountaineer's library if you live in Seattle. I think I have a copy of it, so maybe I can send you a xerox.

I'd agree that they're more enjoyable when the rubble is covered by snow, Dave, but lack of snow is no reason not to go. It's beautiful in that bowl behind Washington and Ellinor and at this time of the year you could even find a nice picnic site on some heathery benches with a little lake and lots of wildflowers. It might be nice to wear gators to keep the scree out of your boots, or maybe to wrap your cuffs with tape to accomplish the same, though.

I'm sorry you feel "sermoned" DM. Fact is, people are all the time proclaiming the approach to the North Ridge of Baker "done for the year" or Goode Glacier "impossible" and other folks believe them. I'm just trying to help.

Thanks, Dru. That "Big Hill" is a pretty exciting stretch of road, eh?

Wind, I think that big huge square rock you describe may be "A Peak" or whatever it is, a satellite peak on the NE side of Mount Ellinor. If you hike down toward "Peak A," east from Ellinor, there is a steep chute that drops to the back side into Jefferson Creek. I believe it heads down and left before you drop into that bowl with the boulders that is a few hundred feet down from the summit. Anyway, once down in that basins at the headwaters of Jefferson Creek, you can traverse accross the bowl and climb over an intervening ridge to reach a gully going back up to the ridgecrest just short of the summit of Washington. At the Mount Washington summit block, you should skirt around right and then you can either climb up a steep gully toward the summit, or continue on a ledge system that has some exposure to it and then scramble back south along the final ridge to the summit. You should not have too much problem following the normal route down from the summit of Washington. Just follow the summit ridge south, back down below where you joined it, and the point where the route departs down and left on some scree-covered ramps is obvious. Follow this ramp system down and right, looking for a way to get to a heathery bench area below (there are a couple possible ways to get down to it). From this flat bench area due south of the Summit of Mount Washington, look for a southeasterly ridge with some towers on it, and find the trail heading down just to the right of the top of that ridge. You're on your way.

Poncho, You may be talking about the doiagonal ramp up the face from that large bowl on the southeast flank of Mt. Washington. It is indeed a great route, one that involves some exposure but is otherwise suitable for beginners. You pass through two bolws full of rubble and the ramp itself is somewhat "dirty" at this time of year, but is still an exellent route with a very scenic approach to an exciting finish. To get to that SE bowl, I've been both ways and I think it is preferable to take a slightly more direct start near the waterfall 200 or 300 yards short of the trailhead. here's a description

I liked the fingerlocks on sloe children.

Alex - Even on the darkest of nights, you should be able to see accross a glacier pretty well so a headlamp isn't essential for routefinding on a macro-scale but for negotiating crevasses and snowbridges, or for bushwacking, one thing that would help solve your problem is to have at least one person in your party carry a headlamp that actually puts out some light. Most of the super light headlamps people carry around these days are good for reading a map or looking for something around the campsite, and they are adequate to follow a trail or a cross country route if you already knokw the way, but they are inadequate for routefinding, in my view. In general, it is not as bad as you think. I have wandered about in the bush and in the crevasse fields in the dark many times, and almost never have I gotten lost or gone the wrong way because of the darkness on an alpine start. I've stumbled down of many climbs and cursed the darkness when I didn't bring a headlamp, though.

Klenke- I've been up both Maselpanik Creek and Depot Creek and for a hit-and-run peak climb sort of trip, I would recommend Maselpanik as an approach to Rahm. There is some truth to what you say, and not only is the waterfall pretty cool but so too is that upper valley above it, but in actual fact I don't think the drive to Maselpanik takes all that much longer, I believe the overall effort required to get from car to summit is way less and, unless somebody has recently done a lot of brushing in Depot Creek, you go through as much brush at the start of the Depot Creek trail and in the swamp above the waterfall as we did in Maselpanik Creek this Spring. The Maselpnik Glacier is scenic, and that gully/ice tongue is pretty cool. In addition, you are much less likely to run into ranger rick who may send you back from Depot Creek to get a customs permit and wilderness permit. Of course, if you want to hang out in an alpine area with a couple of high lakes, and knock off Spickard and Redoubt or Custer while you are at it, Depot Creek would be a better way to do. If you choose Maselpanik, it'd be a good idea to call ahead and find out if the Maselpanik Road is going to be open. I would guess it would add 4-5 miles of road hiking if they gated it back down at the Silver-Skagit main line.

is this what you guys are talking about?? ramrod website

What about the free beer? And isn't there going to be a puppy-toss? How 'bout a Jerry Sanchez kicking contest, or a midnight speed climbing competition on Castle Rock? No boulder racing from the top of Snow Creek Wall?

dm- There is no such thing as "impossible," especially when it comes to crossing a couple hundred yards of a tiny North Cascade glacier and accessing a low-angled rock ridge. The answer to your question will depend on your skill level and how determined you are. I believe that your friend is talking about a "moat" and not a "schrund" if he is talking about the point where you step from ice to rock and I think you should interpret his report to mean no more than that he couldn't imagine crossing - at what appeared to him to be the only easy point to do so - if the wedge of ice enclosing the moat got any thinner. Wait for another opinion, or go on up there and see for yourself. Even if another party comes back and reports it to be impossible, I can assure you: there is ALWAYS a way.

I agree with absolutely everything you wrote there, Kurt. My only disagreement is on where I think you want to go from here. It looks to me like those who don't like BeckFest want to shoot it down out of a sense that they're fighting for truth, justice, and the American way. I say let's look ahead and consider the alterntives: Will cc.com benefit if we pull the rug out from under Beck? Will you? You may want to see about getting Jon and Tim to tell him that he is off the planning committee for any future events, but if he has to call up vendors and back out of commitments now, who benefits from that? Exactly what "compromise" could we make that would retain the original flavor of ropeup?

Mr. Whitelaw recommends bring two #1 camelots, so you can use one lower down on the pitch and still have one for that move near the end. But if you're like CTuller, you just blow it off and get on up to the belay anyway. I'm not surprised about the hex, though.

I'm with you on most of what you said, Erik. All the disenfranchised can get together and tell stories about Beck behind his back and drink way too much beer and go out and climb some good routes while we're at it. We can call it "bitchfest..." and think of ourselves as righteous outlaws who stood up to the man. It'll be fun. But we don't have to shoot down Beck in order to do that.