mattp

I believe a route-reporting database was at one time thought to be one of the possible functions of this bulletin board but because it has been set up to so easily lend itself to back-and-forth discussion, it has become more of a chat room and less of that sort of resource. Meanwhile, there have been a couple of proposals and I believe there are some old threads on the idea of an on-line version of something like a NW climbing journal.

Karl- I had some mixed reactions to my initial reading of your proposal but upon reading this "clarification" I feel rather strongly that it is those who are so reactionary about fearing retrobolting who have really done all of us a great disservice and not people like yourself who are trying to offer one part of a solution to the issue. Yes, I understand the idea that rock climbing has been "dumbed down" by sport bolting and I am glad there are some who fight hard to stem the great proliferation of bolts on every mountain wall, crag and boulder in the universe, but the problem I see is that they seem to think they must be absolutely rigid about this and quite often they are able to completely stifle any discussion. The fact is that times have changed. Savage personal attacks and unbending dogma are not going to turn back the clock to an earlier age. They do, however, alienate different factions within our group and prevent the exchange of ideas. In today's world, the feared fresh-from-the-gym climber who got a bosch drill for their birthday has nobody to turn to if they want to talk about drilling ethics or techniques and the result of all the acrimony is that they are MORE likely to screw up rather than LESS. Even though I did think it odd the way you linked a historical record to the future maintenance or alteration of rock climbs, you should not be "forced" to offer this explanation that comes more in the form of a retraction. In my view, the balance and thoughtfulness that we seek can only come about through informed and honest discussion.

I have always associated trenchfoot with being out more than a day or two, and not necessarily having your feet ever get "very wet" but merely wearing wet boots and walking in snow for at least a few days in a row and failing to put on completely dry socks when you hit the sack at night. However, I found this by running "trenchfoot" on Google: Trenchfoot is a very serious nonfreezing cold injury which develops when skin of the feet is exposed to moisture and cold for prolonged periods (12 hours or longer). The combination of cold and moisture softens skin, causing tissue loss and, often, infection. Untreated, trenchfoot can eventually require amputation. Often, the first sign of trenchfoot is itching, numbness, or tingling pain. Later the feet may appear swollen, and the skin mildly red, blue, or black. Commonly, trenchfoot shows a distinct "water-line" coinciding with the water level in the boot. Red or bluish blotches appear on the skin, sometimes with open weeping or bleeding. The risk of this potentially crippling injury is high during wet weather or when troops are deployed in wet areas. Soldiers wearing rubberized or tight-fitting boots are at risk for trenchfoot regardless of weather conditions, since sweat accumulates inside these boots and keeps the feet wet. ( U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine ) Also, I will add that my own emergency room situation occurred when I had a blister that didn't fully heal before I went climbing and stuffed my foot into a tight boot for a day of climbing in warm weather. So be careful, soldier.

If it is getting worse, I would go see a doctor without delay. One possible cause of your problem is trenchfoot. If you've had cold feet on a couple of recent mountaineering trips, it is a good bet that they were cold and wet - and if you keep your feet cold and wet for a couple days at a time you can get injured without actually getting frostbite. It usually heals on its own, I think, but it can lead to infection and loss of tissue. Numbness is not a good sign. If you see any signs of redness, especially if accompanied with swelling, go see a doctor. If you see it rapidly expanding or starting to show streaks up your foot, go to the emergency room. I once had a blister get infected and went to the hospital when it "flared up" and they told me I was probably within hours of having it get so bad I might have lost the toe or even a large part of my foot.

It is definitely BELOW 7200, but the moraine/bench before you get onto the glacier makes a pretty good high camp. If you go up that first hill to the flat area alongside the Heliotrope Ridge, you will be about At 7200 and you may be able to find a dry piece of rock to at least cook on. Any higher, and I think you will be both cooking and sleeping on snow unless you perhaps carry all the way up to the saddle.

Yes, Szy, I am serious. The problem in the Tetons is not the fact that there are guides operating there, but the fact that they have such a large presence. Leavenworth Alpine Guides used to teach classes in Icicle Canyon and I could be wrong but I think they also took clients up Mount Stuart and to the Enchantments without any noticeable problem that I am aware of. I have friends who have guided clients up there, and I think they were probably more careful about their impact and more considerate of other users than a bunch of self-righteous independent climbers who think they own the place. Some folks want to hire guides, some folks want to work as guides. I see nothing wrong with that. I may sound like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth, because I will admit that I fear the Leavenworth rangers might grant some concession more than their share of the available permits or give them some other preferential treatment, but I think guiding, in-and-of-itself, is an OK thing.

I'm not looking to transform our new neighborhood. It would be a losing battle because the trees will win in the end anyway. I would gladly go out to Index to help with some "clean up," though. There, some judicious pruning could make quite a difference.

Allright, guys. Richard asks a question and none of you have any information to offer but we get "f*cK the Forest Service" and "commercial guides suck." I happen to think that guiding is a fine profession, and I don't understand why so many cc.com folks have an attitude about how others should not be able to learn how to climb in groups or should not be able to pay someone to teach them or I have a greater right to enter the Enchantments than a guide with his or her client, or whatever -- but the question here is: does anybody know anything about this issue?

When I moved there, I learned very quickly that absolutely nothing good can come from having a tree in your yard - or your neighbor's. They drop leaves, birds sit in them and crap on your car, they might fall on your house, and they cause moss to grow. There was one real tree on our entire block, right behind my house but on the neighbor's lot accross the alley, and all I wanted to do was to cut it down! Tree's are the enemy - I'm telling you.

I went and checked out that tree at the base of Godzilla today. It is definitely in the way of the trail, and the canopy hangs over the start of the route in such a way that I bet it is the primary source for all that drip and drool that plagues it 310 days a year. Michelle will probably find she has an easier time getting started on the climb if you remove that tree. Trees are the enemy! (Just ask anybody named Sven who lives in in Ballard.)

He was a good man and a dedicated climber.

I don't think you're going to get a "one size fits all" answer to this kind of a question. It sounds as if you may have made some kind of operator error, but some raps are just plain awkward no matter what you do -- like the bear-hug start to a rap from standing on a tree growing out of the cliff.

Trask is going to show slides at Hattie's Hat.

I agree with the idea of seeking permission from the landowner or land manager when it comes to significant alterations, but in the case of pruning some Vine Maples at Index, I think we can be pretty confident that the land manager won't care -- unless, afterwards, they are faced with a bunch of angry phone calls from climbers reacting to the pruning job. If that were to happen, it might be nice to have had the land manager previously say "go ahead" but their response to the situation would probably not be that different and they might even prefer not to have been involved in giving advance permission. Mr. K may be doing the most important thing by starting the discussion here.

I have been involved in replacing old bolts at Static Point for a number of years, and the standard practice has always been to remove an old one and place a new one in exactly the same hole without adding any. There have been exceptions, but on Static Point those exceptions have been rare and that is a good thing. Lots of people actually enjoy leading those runout slabs and, in my view, the climbs there are mostly not dangerous but simply "thought provoking." On Line, in particular, is an area classic that should be left alone. It is the one climb that just about everyone who has ever been up to Static Point has climbed and, while I am not saying it is the best climb on the crag, it is one of the first routes put up there and one that kind of sets the tone of the place. If we want to debate ethics, I think the "first ascensionist" principal is an interesting one. I understand how it has become the accepted standard, but the longer I climb the more I realize that it is not the absolute or unassailable rule that many hold it out to be. If the first ascensionists wanted to come back and retro-bolt the climbs at Static Point with bolts at body-length intervals, would it be OK? Or what if the first ascensionist had been an egotist who set out to make a statement of how bad they were and deliberately established a bunch of death-routes? Or what about this: the pro bolt for the crux moves on Shock Treatment is about 3 feet higher than the logical placement because the leader on the first ascent put in a rivet and stood on it to place a bolt three feet higher. It has been upgraded with a 3/8" bolt now, but wouldn't it have been worth considering to move that bolt back down to where the rivet hole is? To clip the bolt, you have to stop in the middle of the most difficult moves of the entire climb.

ChucK - you are showing signs of serious bigotry here. Vine maples are highly valued trees in suburban landscaping - and probably more sought after than "traditional type trees" if you go to Woodinville or Mill Creek. I don't think it is a matter of "vine maple bad; fir or alder good" so much as it is a matter of whether there may be some plants that are causing problems or may even be potentially dangerous. There used to be blackberries along the base of the lower town wall. I know there were some native blackberries up on the wall, but I think the ones along the base may have been the invasive non-native Himalaya blackberry. Anyway, they are mostly gone now and I don't think anybody misses them. In a couple of places, there used to be some vine maples with dead branches pointing upward such that a climber could get impaled. They are gone and I bet not even Lambone wants those particular trees back. There was a broken tree, fairly large, lying right on one of the slab climbs on the upper part of the Lower Town Wall a couple of years ago. It was scary to climb near it and I'm pretty sure it is gone now -- good riddance. I agree that the lower town wall is a different place than the Upper Town Wall -- for many reasons -- and any resource management practices whether it be trail maintenance or bolt replacement or tree-pruning should be undertaken with that in mind, but the differences cut both ways: the upper wall is a more "natural" area and the climbs are somewhat more adventurous, so the crag arguably deserves more careful protection and preservation. However, if you cut down a tree near the upper wall - and do a clean job of it - few would notice; if you cut down an alder near the parking lot, lots of people will go wild.

Sphinx and 'Bone - Are you suggesting there is no room for any tree-pruning at Index? K noted two specific trees, or clumps of trees. Do you think those are rare gems that should be protected or is it just the idea of some madman running around with a chainsaw that you worry about? Do you know that before the climbers got there, what is probably the most popular climb at Index - Great Northern Slab - was a bushy mess and trees used to thrive where there is now that belay station near the top of the slab and the crack was completely invisible?

You are right about that, Fern. Post an inquiry on this board - about absolutely any subject at all - and you're sure to get the usual noisy responses. Perhaps, however, Mr. K hopes that folks will think about an issue that matters to him and he is not actually seeking permission from cascadeclimbers.com spray-junkies.

Careful there, Catbird. If you insult "the man," you'll have an angry Caveman to contend with. As to Index, I remember when somebody cut down about 200 Alders at the base of the lower town wall about 20 years ago. They did kind of a messy job of it (is there a "neat" way to cut down 200 alders?), and many people thought poorly of it at the time. Within a couple of years, though, it looked just fine and I think that in retrospect most Index climbers of the era are glad that it was done. While, as Lummox pointed out, it may not be a good idea to draw attention to climbers' arrogance by cutting down a bunch of trees without landowner permission -- even if we all did agree that the trees at the base of the wall should go -- and while Sphinx might really freak out if somebody repeated what was done 20 years ago, I don't think the kind of small-scale pruning that Mr. K mentioned would offend very many. I didn't read him to suggest he was advocating slashing the trees and leaving a bunch of stumps behind, but actually something more like the kind of pruning and maintenance that most of us would expect in a park, or that we do in our yards.

Bolts placed on lead will usually be placed at decent stances unless the leader rested on a hook when drilling the hole. (this technique was described as part of putting up a route in good style in some post entered over the last few days but I think this is often bad style in that it often results in a bolt being left at a place where it is difficult to clip). It is not always true, however, that bolts placed on lead will be placed "where they belong." Without the benefit of pre-inspecting the pitch, the leader does not always know where the best path lies or where the best belay ledge is going to be, and I think "where they belong" has to do with these and other issues most who are bolting on the lead do not take the time to consider, or are not relaxed enough to fully consider - such as the potential for rope drag or how their bolts may protect the second. I am not advocating bolting all climbs so that there is no adventure. One common criticism of modern sport bolted climbs is that they are "contrived" and I've done what Dru described, too, but it is equally contrived to deliberately bolt a pitch so that crux moves are well above the pro bolts as it is to bolt that same pitch so the hard moves can be cheated or to go to great lenghts to assure that most or all hard moves are well-protected. When you do anything other than a ground-up ascent, following the easiest possible path using all available means of making progress, it is all a contrivance. I think there is and should be room for a variety of styles.

Yes, Dru, you are correct that stances do not always come conveniently before crux's. In that sense, maybe it seemed "necessary" or "convenient" to place a bolt after the crux's on some of the climbs at Goat Dome. I don't remember the climbs up there in any great detail and I am not sure of the history here (were they put up on lead, by somebody who may have been too sketched-out to place a bolt before they just sucked it up and ran through the crux and then stopped at the first available stance, or were they put up on rappel by somebody who had the luxury of being able to choose exactly where to put the bolts?). I can't speculate on what the first ascentionists did and why. I do believe, however, that for most of us it would be prefereable to have a bolt before a difficult move rather than after. A bolt is a bolt and the amount of an eyesore created or the damage done is pretty much the same either way.

Retro, if the bolts come right after rather than right before the crux moves, most of us would say there was an unnecessary runout involved because the same number of bolts could have better protected the climb in question. In this context, I think your belief that the advent of gym and sport climbing has led most of us to become timid leaders is overstated. If what you think is that the climbs in question should not have any bolts, or should have fewer bolts, that is another matter.

I recall White Slabs being more grassy than mossy. I enjoyed the second pitch, though it was a long time ago and I don't remember much else about it. About the same time (3 guidebooks ago), I went looking for Champagne and didn't find it.

Daler- That's kind of what I was hoping to hear about. What do you know about the possibility that failing to wear side shields, or using "inferior" sunglasses for that matter, might cause me to go blind at 50 (that's coming up pretty fast, I might add)? I've always read that it was UV that we should worry about, and how it was transmitted through the clouds even on overcast days, etc. Years ago, all the books said you HAD to wear glass sunglasses because plastic ones would not block the UV, and then I believe it became standard thought that ALL glasses did an adequate job of blocking the UV. I'm not an optometrist and I have never read in any climbing books about this possibility of long term damage, only about "snowblindness" (shamefully, I will admit that I haven't read the last several editions of Freedome of the Hills, though). Mattp

Comparing it to Condor, I'd say this: (1) the approach to Methow Inspiration is shorter and probably a little easier, though you have to climb up some loose talus to get to it. (2) The Methow route is a little less continuous, with some zig-zags and stuff but it doesn't have a half-pitch of scrambling in the middle of it. (3) As Erik noted, the rock is not as good as that on Condor (4) The Methow route is not quite as heavily bolted and indeed there are a couple places where you could even fall and hit something. (5) It seems to me the hardware wasn't quite as good on the Methow route. Although I pretty much agree with the guidebook comments that I tried to reproduce above, I thought the Methow route had an interesting overhang on the second or third pitch and I though the last pitch, or maybe it was the second to last, was actually pretty good.