mattp

Perhaps it is a gentle reminder that we're all headed to Tacoma this week.

You're showing yourself to have hung out with a conservative crowd, Mitch. They caught on real fast in Yosemite and all the kids were using them.

Having never met Mitch, I can't vouch for his age. However, as far as I can recall, "cams" were first available in about 1978 or '79 when Jardine was selling/trading them for ropes in The Valley.

It was an idea that had promise, but I think that in reality it turned out to be mostly impractical. I have drilled holes and then gone back a couple months later to install a bolt in them and had a very difficult time finding the hole -- even when I stood on exactly the same footholds that I used when I drilled the hole! It might not happen on overhanging rock, but otherwise an empty hole can fill with debris and disappear very quickly unless the outside edges of the hole were chipped to make a larger scar. In overhanging rock, most of us would be a little leary of the expanding/removable anchors.

I'm sort of with you, there JayB. As I said before, I think it is irresponsible to deliberately set dangerous routes but if someone were to go to, say, exit 38 and set a route where there were 4 or 5 bolts in 80 feet rather than the usual 10 or 12, it might be OK provided that one could clearly see this from the ground and could therefore make their own decision as to whether they were up for it. Better might be to bolt it so that it had bolts closely spaced at the start and they got wider toward the top so that if one fell off they might take a big whipper and not hit anything. This would probably take a few more bolts. The potential value I see in this might lie in demonstrating that there are other alternatives besides body-length bolt spacing and it might provide an exciting experience for some climbers. Conversely, I am NOT suggesting this AT ALL but if there were one climb at Static Point with close bolt spacing, well away from the main ledge somewhere, it might be acceptable even there. It might allow somebody new to slab climbing an opportunity to find out that those sticky shoes actually do stick.

Interesting. What was Mr. Kemple trying to do, exactly? Did it say?

Again, it has been noted that there is a difference between scary and dangerous and I think inconvenient or awkward is yet another thing. Yes, it may be a "contrivance" to deliberately put a bolt low or off to the side instead of right in front of a hard move, but that doesn't make the move any more dangerous unless the result is that you are creating an unnecessary potential to hit something during a fall. I pretty much agree with you, JayB, that to deliberately rap-bolt something so as to be dangerous would be irresponsible, at best, but I've never heard of anyone trying to do this or advocating that anybody else do so. Sometimes, even with a great amount of care and effort, bolted pitches come out funny whether they were established on lead or on rappel, however. I could be wrong, but I don't think the awkward placements on Kill da Wabbit were done so deliberately so much as they were trying to somewhat minimize the number of placements and that is how it came out (and notwithstanding the fact that I think it is oddly bolted, I think it is one of the better pitches on Static Point).

With your gift for diplomacy and tact, I can see why you find it all so boring. (That and the fact that we don't seem to see very many new points being made, I suppose.) I've climbed the Davis Holland/Lovin Arms route three times, and never properly climbed that last pitch. Ran out of steam at the top of the 5th pitch once, sleazed off to the left once, and my partner led the seam to the right of the proper 6th pitch the third time I was there. Right now I wouldn't make it up the first five pitches so I'm not yet ready to grapple with that last one, but one of these days ...

Its OK, Dwayner. Sphinx is just sore about not being invited to give the keynote address at the Rockfest Alternative. Calm down, and make some space on your program, and everything will be OK. Like LBJ said, you'd rather have them inside the tent pissing out then outside the tent pissing in.

Good points, JayB and ChucK. What it boils down to, I think, is a few relatively simple points that lend themselves to complex thinking when applied: 1. Bolts are ugly. Their mere presence on the rock should be minimized for aesthetic reasons. 2. Bolting causes environmental impacts associated with not only the hole and the metal in that hole, but the increased traffic that bolted routes usually generate. This is another reason to minimize bolt usage. 3. Most people want to feel safe when they are climbing crags, but everyone has different comfort levels when it comes to leading and some people prefer to climb routes with some or even a high degree of scare to them. If there is room for sport bolted routes in some locations, it does not follow that every climb should be bolted that way and indeed the opposite is true: if sport climbs exist in some locations, that is specifically a reason why other crags or other routes on the same crags should NOT be bolted that way. 4. The person who puts up a route, whether a ground-up first ascent or top-down engineered sport climb, should think about what they are doing and consider what they are leaving behind for other climbers. The impacts are very different (see above) but it is equally self-indulgent to go out and make a statement about how bad-ass we are by leading a bunch of run-out horror shows and expecting everybody else to honor that as it is to build a sport climbing area and expect everyone else to value that "creation." 5. The person who takes it upon theirself to alter a route, whether replacing old bolts or adding or removing bolts, has an even greater obligation to consider their impact on other climbers than does the first ascensionist. Whether you think the historical rights or deference we give to first ascensionists are sensible or not, we as a climbing community have generally accept the idea that those who put up a route DO have certain authority that others do not when it comes to subsequent alterations. And in the case of removing bolts that one may feel have been wrongly added by someone other than the first ascent party, the "correction" may in some cases cause as much harm (physical or political) as the prior "wrong." In my way of thinking, much of it boils down to the need to protect diversity. I like the fact that we have crags with so many different personalities within an easy day-trip of Seattle: North Bend, Leavenworth, Index, Darrington, Static Point and others.... If you can't find a crag that you like, and climbs that you like, you just don't like rock climbing.

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.