mattp

Mr. K, I agree with Beck: quit pissing into the fire. He may have hijacked what you thought was YOUR party, but the fact is he DID sign up for the group campsite both of the last two years and he DID do whatever legwork was done. Does that give him the right to the trademark name "Ropeup?" I don't know. But I do know this: he has put a lot of work into this thing and he's got a lot of people on board. I don't think it is right to ask him to cancel all of it now - nor do I think that would serve anybody's interest. Let go of the name "Rope-Up." Let Beck and others have a success -- if the local American Alpine Club chapter that you think is so lame does something like a service project it will only be a good thing. If somebody who never wanted to go climbing "outdoors" is drawn in by corporate sponsorship and actually tries a toprope climb on real granite, what is wrong with that? If the rangers at Leavenworth think it is OK for climbers to throw a big event and try to sanitize it so that it meets forest service standards, that's great -- isn't it? I agree with you that corporate sponsorship and professional beer servers in a formal "beer garden" and an organized program are not MY idea of a good time. If you want to organize your alternative event, lets do it. But lets not try to undermine Beck. Lets do it on a different weekend and lets let those who want the big festival enjoy their party. I mean, what are you fighting for here? It's the right to kick it with your buddies and have a good time. Nobody is stopping you. All of this pissing and moaning does kind of stink.

CTuller-I noticed that you ran it out between bolts at the top of that 4th pitch. If you are like me, a #1 camelot will make that move up to the last bolt a little more comfortable -- if you don't leave it lower down on the pitch where there is a very tempting spot for it. By the way, Pitches 5 and 6 are a little harder (so is the last one), but the whole thing is just fine and yesterday I spent about 15 minutes scrubbing lichen on the 7th pitch. Its all ready for you.

Peter- you are referring to what we call "The Darrington Effect." All the bushes grow beneath overlaps, where snow and ice sliding off the slabs doesn't take them out. So, too, all the lichen and moss and stuff, though these smaller plant items grow on the down-side of every little ripple on the slabs themselves as well as beneath overhangs. Thus, you look up and all you can see is filth, but when you turn around and look down, it looks much better. Handily, we generally grab onto and step on the upper surfaces of every knob and ripple, so a route that looks like a mess from below may in fact turn out to be relatively unimpeaded by lichen (I know that Darrington is an acquired taste and I very definitely said "relatively"). Total Soul is a very good example of this phenomenon. compare picture number 1 with number two. These pictures show the same pitch on the same day. Number 1: Number 2:

Did one of you guys lose a pair of sunglasses? We found one at the base of the route.

Yo Fence. Re-read my post. What I wrote was that I could not, in a few quick internet searches, find any real validation for my prior statement. As for anti-semeticism, I would tend to agree that it is not a classic conservative idea. However, I think the east-coast liberal establishment and the liberal enclave that I surround myself with has historcally been and probably still is way ahead of your middle America conservatives on this issue. And yes, smart and educated people ARE for gun control.

Fence, Wherever I got the idea that more educated people are more likely to be liberal, I have never really questioned it. I ran some internet searches and I found people asserting that more educated people are more likely to vote, more likely to engage in political protest, more likely to favor gun control, less likely to be anti-semetic, and less likely to rely on TV news as their main source of information about politics -- and I did not find a single place where someone was suggesting that more education led people toward traditional "conservative" positions. I'm sure you could find some, though, and I don't have any real statistics to back up my statement. Maybe I read it in some liberal news media in an article written by someone who was making things up.

Yo Fence. I grew up in Michigan.

I agree that there are some smart, articulate, and well-read conservatives, and anybody who dismisses all southerners as ignorant is clearly incorrect. However, isn't it a fact that more highly educated and well-read individuals, on average, are more liberal? That doesn't necessarily mean conservatives are stupid -- but of course they are, aren't they? Ignorant rednecks...

Fairweather, I think that your belief that our recent actions will in any way reduce the anger of Moslem extremists is misplaced. I agree that our troop presence in the holy land of Islam has been a sore spot, and I agree that we may well be seeking to move some bases out of Saudi Arabia, but I doubt that our war on Iraq is going to reduce Arab dislike for the U.S. in any way. Do you think that Arabs who don't want us in the Middle East are going to see it as a step in the right direction when, instead of maintaining bases in Saudi Arabia by an agreement with their government, we maintain troops in Iraq and Afghanistan following successful invasions? Or do you believe that B.S. about how in a year or two we are going to put these countries back on their feet, with benevolent democratic governments, and then leave them alone? If we were to push Israel into allowing a real Palestinian state it might help reduce Arab enmity toward the U.S., but I'd be surprised if we actually do that.

Fairweather- Please explain to me how my excerpt of your statement altered the meaning of what you wrote in any way. Please also answer my points if you disagree with them. It could be that I haven't read the history correctly, but I believe the trend is not in the direction that you suggested -- at least with regard to these particular issues. My point about NPR and NYT vs. Fox News or USA Today is that they give much more information, including the historical background to the stories they present. With regard the sensational story about the award-winning reporter who fabricated his stories for the NYT, I believe this is a case where the exception proves the rule: the fact that it was such a big story indicates that it is extremely unusual for this to occur.

Fairweather, it is possible I'm not seeing the "big picture." Hell, I even believe that it is possible that human industrial activity has altered the balance of nature and that it could have effects on such things as climate! That's environmental extremism for sure. With regard to gay rights, I see that the Supreme Court just struck down sodomy laws in Texas and that many states and cities are only recently starting to allow people to name their gay partners as spouses for the purposes of survior's benefits in employe pension plans and the like. The best man at my wedding is a twisted gay pervert and I could be way wacko for thinking that we are seeing increasing tolerance for gays. Pacivism? By that I assume you mean a preference for us to take care of our own problems at home and let other nations deal with theirs themselves. Hell - even George W. Bush the candidate said he liked that idea! Socialized Medicine? We'll see. It's been a back and forth issue, for sure, but if the insurance companies keep chipping away at us with "tort reform" and the healthcare crisis keeps on expanding, we may yet see a turn toward government regulation or even, horrors, a single payor system. I don't see much support for the abolishment of medicaid or medicare. Federalism? Do you mean an erosion of State's rights? I think the trend has been more or less in this direction for, like, 200 years. Unionism? Again, I'm not sure what you mean. Lots of people are bitching about laws regulating wrongful termination and such, and perhaps rightfully so, but I don't think we're seeing a reduction in these kinds of regulations, are we? Yes, I live in Seattle and I have mostly liberal friends. But I believe I get more of "the big picture" from NPR and the New York Times than I do from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News or USA Today. What is in your "big picture?"

Doug-returning by noon might be a good idea but I think if you sat at the upper saddle with a watch, you'd find that many more climbers on any given day reach that point in their descent after noon than before noon, even if they planned or hoped to do so. 8:00 is a late start, for sure, and I don't condone such slovenly habits, but I'm wondering if some people around here may be looking for a way to tell themselves it won't happen to them.

You may be in for a surprise, Fairweather! It looks to me as if most of these ideas are gaining in popular acceptance, rather than fading toward the fringe. Maybe I'm just a naive leftist extremist, though.

Fence, we are not being told anything like the truth of the matter, so we may never know but I think it is about power and position in the Middle East and that at least indirectly it DOES have a lot to do with oil. No doubt Saddam was a bad guy, but there are lots of bad guys around the world and many of them are our friends. By all accounts (I think even Bush and company agree if you read between the lines) the Saudi's posed and still pose a much greater threat. They have a much stronger military, they are funding terrorist organizations, and almost all the hijacker's on 9-11 were from there. "Freedom" doesn't exist in that country either. But they are not in the "axis of evil." I don't know all the reasons why, but I would venture a guess that part of it has to do with the fact that they are more friendly toward U.S. oil interests (aren't they?). I don't know what Trask is talking about, though. A bunch of jets buried in the sand? Were these banned weapons? I think not. Did Saddam's airforce threaten the U.S.? Of course not. Fox news IS just blowing smoke. ChucK has it right, I think. The democrats are idiots. They pin themselves to this issue of our not finding the weapons of mass destruction, and we will of course find something somewhere so the republicans can say "I told you so." Moreover, it is just a loser of an issue because it really doesn't matter all that much at this point. Those who believe we did the right thing in Iraq don't really care if we don't find anything and those who think it is wrong to engage in pre-emptive war when our interests are not severely threatened are not going to change their minds over this issue either. I think the democrats are equally stupid in their narrowly focused complaints about the State of the Union speech. Yes, he lied and they have caught him in the act. But the point is not that he lied -- the point is, in my opinion, that he lies all the time. Just last week or the week before, he said that we went in to Iraq because the Iraqi's had refused to permit inspections and nobody said anything about this obvious lie. The democrats have no balls and they lack vision. Have any of them said what they think we should do now? Not really. They probably will go down in flames because they just can't piece together any coherent position. As much as I can't stand the republicans, there's no leadership in the democratic party.

The 6th or 5th is TIME. This is different from "timing," an important factor which is founded in both judgment and opportunity. But the raw factor, "TIME," is probably more important than any of the others listed by Cavey. An untalented climber with crappy tools and little tenacity can eventually find a way to link-up Perisis and Index but, for most of us, our work and family lives sure do get in the way, don't they? The best time to try ANY climb is when you have time to do it!!!

The truly heinous part is less than a quarter mile, but the road fits my definition of "bad" for two miles, and the Forest Service has told us they have no funds to maintain it. At one time, they proposed to gate it and install berms, so I suppose we should be happy they didn't do that, but I'm still hoping that we can get some road maintenance some day. A guy from the Access Fund said there is a slim chance that they'd be able to help with some $, and the DTown District Ranger said they'd welcome such a thing if it should materialize. Meanwhile, the Ranger did say it was OK when I went up there with The Safety Man and filled some potholes. At present, you don't want to drive up there in low-clearance car if you don't want to scrape bottom, and you want to take your partner's car if you are overly concerned about your paint job, but it is not all that bad. Most normal people with normal cars will be able to drive to within a quarter mile of the end, but it IS marginal.

Full moon, climbing, cc.com sprayers, beer ... I think it'll all work out OK.

I've done it this late in the year and it was "tricky," but we did just fine and my buddy was not an experienced ice and snow climber. We went for the Park Headwall, and the glacier was busted up fairly severely so there was quite a bit of route-finding involved and at one place we had to exit the glacier and climb some bad rock before getting back on the glacier again. The 'schrund was tricky, with a rotten bridge leading to an overhanging upper wall, and the headwall was so soft that we had to do the dog-paddle to get up it. We descended a line much closer to the Boulder Park cleaver, and it actually had some ice on it.

Mr. K, I agree that "corporate" sponsorship and official (commercial) beer servers do not sound like my idea of an end of the season climber's celebration, but perhaps it is OK that Beck wants to upsize and commercialize Ropeup. Yes, the event may turn out to be one that you and I are less interested in, but if he can draw a crowd of climbers and bring together such diverse factions as the American Alpine Club, Access Fund, CC.Com, and the Leavenworth Ranger District, that would be a good thing in my opinion. We've tried to get something going with the local Forest Service office before, and I believe the Access Fund has had limited success in trying to get projects going over there -- if it takes sponsorship from CascadeDesigns and Pyramid for them to get interested in climbers, I guess that is OK by me. I don't really know about the Rat thing but I can only assume it is either some kind of a joke or a rediculous misunderstanding. Like Dru said, we can always head down to the group campsite at the other campground if Beck gets too official on us.

I don't see anything wrong with Wayne reporting that he feels like a champion for pulling off what has been his dream climb/obsession. Perhaps "detest" is a strong word, but I agree that people who deliberately sandbag their ratings are just as egotistical as those who overly boast about their accomplishments. The so-called "reticent hardmen" are simply showing off in a more indirect and manipulative fashion if instead of crowing about what they've done they are deliberately under-rating something while hoping that somebody is one day going to think "wow -- he's a badass to have called this only 5.8." I think its a tad bit irresponsibile, too, because that little game may in fact encourage somebody else to get in over their head. I don't think Wayne has said anything other than that he's psyched about what they just did. I'd say the congratulations are in order .

Getting down early is a good game plan, Erik, but many of those Teton climbs are pretty long for the parties that attempt them. I bet that on any given day, many if not most parties on the biger routes find themselves high up at thunderstorm hour.

Cavey- I wasn't referring to your earlier attempt and I don't have any idea whether you guys were "off route" or not. My point is that on this and many mountain routes there are lots of possible variations and depending on one's level of skill and their judgment, and on the nuances in the route description itself, they may waste a lot of time obsessing over the very minute details of a route description. If I went up there I'd be looking to follow Jim's description, too.

Cavey: the route I did is very definitely on the NE Arete and, for the portion where I deviated from that described in "Select Climbs," I believe I followed more closely to the crest of the NE Arete itself than the variation described in the book (I could be wrong about this - like I said my memory is dim, OK?). You are right, though, that the point is not which way is better and I don't think anybody here is really trying to debate that issue -- the point is that J'Berg rules! The reason it is in "Select Climbs" has as much (or maybe more) to do with where it is and how it looks from accross the valley as it does with the actual climbing on the route. The reason I bring up my "alternate" route is that I would encourage folks not to bail if they get "off route" on the lower part of the climb. Several variations are possible, and many have been climbed.

Dru- Robert described "a real bushwack" to reach the ridge crest, then heather slopes to a rock ridge, then a rappel, a gully that looked like shit so they climbed some 5.7 rock that "wasn't as rotten as described..." etc. As I said, my memory is rather dim but I don't think the way I went was any worse than that. Go climb it both ways and give us the full report.