mattp

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.

Flash, there is some truth to what you are saying about the fact that some may treat it like just another commodity to be sold to somebody who is looking for a thrill, and there is something sad about that fact. However, I bet the reality of what these gaper clients go through once they get over there is more like mountain climbing than some bought-and-sold amusement park ride as you seem to imply. Have you ever tried to climb a really big mountain? Even if you have a guide short roping you and a porter carrying your pack, climbing Mount Everest IS a big deal.

The Methow Inspiration Route is in my view better than "mediocre" but I agree with Erik if what he means is that there are better 5.9 rock climbs of similar length elsewhere in the State. I think the guidebook says something to the effect that it was intended to be a set up so as to be (1) straight-forward, (2) well-protected, and (3) a good introduction to sport climbing on Goat Wall and it falls just short of all three objectives. There are better 5.9 climbs of similar length up at Washington Pass, but they are trad routes, of course, and I think the M.I.R. can be an O.K. outing if what you want is a multi-pitch sport climb.

Fox- I agree with you to the extent that peak bagging isn't exactly my thing. But it is not a bad goal for someone to decide they want to climb all the Cascade Volcano's, or tag all the 9,000 footers in Washington or whatever, and just as worthy a goal as one that a "real climber" might set after identifying the six most appealing north faces in the range, or noticing a dozen three-star 5.11 muti-pitch climbs in the Index guidebook.

Good point, Iain. It is like another thread this morning where it was said that peak bagging is for geeks. Many of us climbers think we are god's gift to humanity or something and get all snotty about "lesser" climbs or "lesser" climbers. Mountain climbing, rock climbing, ice climbing, ski descents, even hiking -- it's all good. And it's all real enough to kill you.

I don't think many of us really will want to wade through all of that, Catbird, and it is really not necessary. The imporant points here are largely covered by Mike's report and related issues which were noted by Mitch in another thread: learn what you are doing before you launch out onto challenging leads on trad pro, consider using longer and more flexible slings than a short and stiff quick-draw for trad gear, keep track of where you are on the rock and where there is potential to hit something if you fall and your pieces hold or if they fail, double up the pro when you expect difficult climbing even if you think the first piece is solid, etc. You should do these things despite the fall factor you might calculate with your palm pilot, and you should do all these things whether you are climbing on ice floss or an 11 mil super-rope.

An honest budget discussion would at least have included the following line item: Iraq War: $30b +

It reminds me of when the Bush team presented a budget to Congress that made no mention of any expense associated with the Iraq war, even though by then they had already spent - what was it? - $30 billion or something on the war preparations?

What do you guys who thought it was OK to lie to us about why we were going to war in Iraq think about this? Sure Saddam is a bad guy and you may say that the ends justified the means, but is a lie used to promote a tax cut OK? (Whether an active lie or a passive "lie of omission" it is still a lie if you say or don't say something in a manner where you know people will rely upon your statement or would difinitely want to know about the matter you are not revealing.)

The road is fine. I heard from somebody over in Mazama that it was closed, and I said that was news to me because I've been up there three times already this year, so don't believe all that you hear. There is no longer a sign at the trailhead, though, and somebody keeps taking down the hubcaps that denote Darrington crags. There are patches of snow at the bottom of a couple climbs at 3:00 rock, and I'd take an ice axe if I was headed to Dreamer (it might come in handy for about 100 feet or so), but otherwise Darrington is "open" and the bugs haven't kicked in yet. Just tell the rain gods to let up a bit.

I could be wrong, but my impression is that it doesn't matter that much as far as protecting your eyes is concerned. You can use the most expensive Nikons, the styling Julbo's, or cheapest glacier glasses from REI or even the drug-store ones and they will all block the UV. I use side shields only in the most extreme conditions, like climbing at truly high altitude or when spending an entire day on a south-facing snow slope or something, and I have never had any noticeable ill effects (though a friend of mine said that I could have done long-term damage without knowing it). So buy what you want, and for the once a year that you climb Mount Rainier you can put duct tape on the sides if they don't come with side shields. There are other issues, though. Do you care about style? Buy what your friends are wearing, or buy something that is definitely NOT what your friends are wearing. You have to decide for yourself. Toughness? You probably can't beat some of the industrial grade safety glasses for toughness, and some of these come with tinted lenses. Cheap vs. Expensive? Expensive sunglasses may not actually cost as much more as you might think - in the long run. If you are like me, you will take care of the expensive glasses but the more moderately priced ones may end up tossed into your pack flap without use of the glasses case or sitting in the sand at your campsite or whatever. Tint? Rose colored glasses make everything look really cool. Yellow is supposed to cut through the fog better, but I really can't say that I could ever tell the difference.

Fairweather: Are you saying that the Unibomber was a liberal because he had a copy of "the earth in balance?" Come now. The guy was a freak, and most definitely NOT a liberal - he was some kind of anti-everything radical. You complain that it was I who made the broad statement that liberals are harmless, but actually it was n98947 who made the broad assertion that "liberals" are more prone than those on the "right" to resort to name calling, screaming and burning things, and I believe that what I pointed out is true: radicals from either end of the spectrum engage in bombings and burning things, but for the last twenty years the right wingers have vastly outweighed the left wingers in this respect - probably by a factor of ten to one in this country, at least. And for name calling, I don't think the left can even come close to the right. So the Dixie Chicks said their free-speech rights were being violated. Is this the liberal hypocrisy that you find so distasteful?

Yes, I do. Those that burn ski resorts, research labs, or expensive homes or even those who throw bottles at cops, are not liberals - they are radicals. And you know what? By far most of the violent radicals we have seen in this country in the past twenty years have been from the far right, not the far left. Do you remember reading anything about Oklahoma City bombing, the Militia Movement, or the NeoNazi's? How about the bombings and killings of abortion providers? As to name calling, don't you think the names called Bill Clinton and his darling wife are at least equal to those called GW Bush and his? Again, I refer to the book "Blinded by the Right." It is a muckraking book all about the smear tactics of the right and although it is not the best read in the world, the author notes in the preface to the second edition that not a single rightist propagandist mentioned in the book has come out and said that anything he wrote about them is untrue. Now. Are you going to tell us who it is that won't let you boycott those Dixie Chicks?

N98947, you are the one getting all hostile here and I think that on the bulletin board it is those that profess to hate the liberals that consistently spew the most name calling and seathing animosity, not the other way around. The same is also true in the nation as a whole: check out the book "Blinded by the Right," by Brock. Liberals may rightfully be accused of being smug, or they may be out of touch with reality, or you could probably think of some other valid criticisms of the "liberal hypocrites" that won't let Fairweather boycott the Dixie Chicks, but name-calling, screaming, and torching things are not really "liberal" trademarks. They are the tools of the desparate, the uninformed, and the juvenile on all sides of any issue.

I think Catbird is right, however, that there wasn't nearly as much opposition to invading Afghanistan as Iraq. I didn't think it was a good idea and I still don't, because it seems we really haven't changed much in Afghanistan, but as Catbird points out, Afghanistan was harboring terrorists and public support for that war was stronger (international support was too).

Fairweather- You actually started this particular exchange by noting that some liberal hypocrites were denying somebody (you?) the right to boycott the Dixie Chicks. You still haven't answered my question: what are you talking about? As far as denying free speech when it comes to criticizing the government, I'm not sure it meets your definition of a "governmental attempt to stifle free speech" but anybody who criticized the war plan was branded a traitor by the Bush administration and the press -- remember the reaction to some remarks by Patty Murray and Jim McDermott? And the White House press briefings are nothing but a joke. Remember how Helen Thomas was blacklisted and sent to the back of the press room when she did not follow the softball script? Yes, you might say these are public figures who had a responsibility to support the President in a time of war, but someone else might say they had a responsibility to ask questions that nobody else on Capitol Hill or in the Press was asking. ChrisT- Sorry to dissapoint but we can't entertain you all the time.