mattp

It probably wouldn't have happened if he hadn't used those stupid stiffy dogbone draws, eh ChucK?

PMS- I don't think I said I thought the N. Face of Big Four was a grade III -- did I? I said I thought it was easy for a grade V, but I also said I didn't think it should be downgraded solely on the basis of a couple of fast ascents or we'd be downgrading every route in the Cascades with today's emphasis on light-and-fast and car-to-car ascents. I said I thought it between Triple Couloirs and N. Face N. Peak of Index, and you have those rated grade III/IV and IV+, respectively, so I think I'd give it a grade IV. (Since I didn't climb along the summit ridge, I don't know how that might affect my opinion.

Yeah. And it's MardiGras. Wear your beads.

Fern - A comparison of verbal descriptions would not as easily promote an overall comparison of how serious the route might be compared to one that is perhaps a little harder, though shorter, with an easier approach, but more difficult descent. Note that I use the word "might" -- because applying and interpretting the grades is subjective, at best. But I still maintain that I have found them useful over the years even though once I focus in on a particular route I focus more on the details of the description along with what I know about the range, the formation or the mountain, what I can gleen from a topo map, reports from others who have done the route, etc...

The Dexter and Hayes is in a stucco building (isn't it?) on the east side of Dexter Avenue North, on the side of Queen Anne Hill. If you don't see a likely looking group on the main floor, check the basement -- last time we moved downstairs about 8:30. Recently, pubclub has started at about 7:30. If nobody is there, wait at least three minutes. For info, click here to go to web page .

Fern, I agree that that the descriptive information in any guidebook is more valuable than the grade, but I believe it does add something to have the quick numeric indicator of overall seriousness. Despite the arguments from Dru and Don about how the grades are confusing and the European system is better, I have found the NCCS grades to generally be informative over the years -- in a way that would not be so easily gained from "Approach: 10 miles on trail, 2000' elevation gain, 2 creek crossings. Climb: 400', 10 pitches total, 2 pitches 5.9, rest easier, gear to 3", Descent: scramble down to east, 3x25 raps.." In a recent conversation with Gordy Skoog, who was trying to compile some new route information from trip reports on CascadeClimbers.com, he voiced the complaint that the trip reports contained all of the ancedotal information and usually had a rating for the crux pitch, but generally lacked the grades.

I agree with the idea, Mr. K, that I don't think anybody has ever suggested incorporating a day of backpacking into the rating - or at least not to a great degree - but they have taken into account the approach from, and descent back to, what was thought to be the standard camp -- haven't they? As I noted already, I don't think a 6 pitch rock climb in the Northern Pickets (say one of the Swiss Peaks) would be a grade VI, but even though the rock pitches in-an-of-themselves might not be all that serious, I believe the grade (not the rating) would take into account what would almost certainly be some kind of approach mountaineering and a mountaineering descent.

Natural: You indicate disdain for those who spray on this route, but then you fling the crap yourself. Did "the guy who reported the second ascent" "dog the shit out the crux?" I was there and I think not. Nor did he indicate that the pitch was easy. What he did do was say that there was no 95 degree ice, no mixed climbing in the conditions that we found it, and that it was easier than the previous report had indicated. All who have done the climb since then seem to agree. I agree, there is a lot of posturing and plenty of B.S. to go around....

I believe the approach SHOULD be considered. As I understand the grades, they are not only to indicate the lenght of time it takes to complete a climb, but also the commitment factor. A six pitch rock climb on Snow Creek Wall is not as serious as six pitches on some spire in the nothern Pickets, and the grade SHOULD be affected by this. This doesn't make the grade II into a grade VI, but it probably does in my mind make what might othwerwise be a grade II into a grade III. My general impression is that the approach and decent have been taken into account in the grade system over the years.

This has become what I view as a pointless argument. It's not on the way - yes it is: it is only 40 minnutes out of the way - you're stupid - no you are. Thread locked.

It seems to me the pubclub thing has been working out OK lately, as folks have come to accept the uncertainty and the banter of it all, but I agree with Thinker that this DOES turn people away and some of those are people I'd like to meet. By having a weekly argument that frequently includes obnoxious rancor, we give the impression that the event itself will be equally distasteful and we discourage those who may be shy. It is funny to me that some who complain about the lack of "local legends" and the outnumbering of men to women don't seem to make the connection, but that is the way with the site as a whole: some of the spray and personal attacks turn people away and on balance they probably render the site less interesting than it could be -- but those who like to fling the shit are having too much fun amusing themselves to care very much. But PubClub is just an excuse to go out and drink beer. I like meeting people, and I have made climbing partners out of many folks I have met at a Tuesday night pubclub, but it is probably not such an important event that it needs a tightly regulated schedule -- at least not all the time. We might have a more formal pubclub once in a while, though, and this could take place at a pub but if the goal was to be all-inclusive and meet new people it might be more successful to plan a potluck to be held at someone's house or at a picnic shelter like Julie Brugger's "climber's picnic" that used to take place in May or June each year (maybe it still does). Along with a general notice on this board, personal invitations could be extended and there would be no smoke concerns, no age limit, and those who just don't like to hang out in bars and drink or watch others drink would be more likely to attend. This week, I vote for Dexer Hayes. The place was comfortable and it appears to me as if there is more interest there than Grady's . I'd vote for Grady's next week, though, but I'm only saying that I "would" do so. I don't want to get on Kurt's bad side for voting prematurely.

I agree wholeheartedly that we shouldn't change the rating or grading systems just because speed ascents and one-day ascents have become popular. I do think, however, that the N. Face of Big Four is probably one of the easiest grade V's I can think of and I'd be inclined to give it a grade IV. While I would not want to suggest the route isn't serious, or that relatively inexperienced parties should be encouraged to try it, I would agree that the approach is trivial and retreat is not difficult. Furthermore, although the face itself is 4,000 feet high, no more than half of it is really technical (frequently less) and there are, in reality, not very many hard pitches. For comparison, I have done Big Four and I haven't done Triple Couloirs or N. Face of North Peak of Index in the winter, but I would guess that Big Four lies between these two in overall difficulty and seriousness. What are their grades?

A couple random points: I agree that the flexible ball of the foot on a telemark boot is an advantage when hiking, but if there is a long trail hike to get to a ski run I often wear my sneakers and carry my boots anyway. Both telemark boots and AT boots kick steps well. Neither telemark boots or AT boots rock climb all that well, but at least the AT boots don't have that toe extension on them. For water ice climbing, you gotta use rigid crampons to get much performance from telemark boots though for general glacier climbing and most mountaineering routes they are fine with flexible crampons.

Jim- It sounds as if you are using crampons that are incompatible with your telemark boots. My old Chouinard rigid crampons and my Grivel Rambo's fit my Scarpa t-2's just fine so that the front points are fully available without any messing around. I'd probably break the Couinards if I used them with flexible boots, though, and it may be an extra strain on the Grivel's. My flexible crampons have the front posts wider apart, and hence they slide a little further back on the toe but they still leave adequate front points for mountain climbing.

Alpen- I believe there is likely to be the same Tuesday get-together as always, and it sounds like Dexter Hayes or that place over by Montlake, and that in honor of Tim's coming to town there will be a second event on Tursday. Now maybe we should start talking about Wednesday??

Spankerman was the one that pointed me at the Broiler in the first place. I agree with his assessment that it is a worthy drinking establishment. They served us real drinks and it is a REAL BAR; also the staff was friendly and it seemed to be the kind of place where you might talk to other patrons without being thought some kind of freak. It was not smokey on that occasion but I bet it has potential to be. I believe it is the Wedgewood Alehouse that I was referring to which on brief inspection seemed more like most of the places that we meet and it had a younger crowd and was more beer than booze oriented, and there were tables designed for groups of at least six I think. It was not smokey on that occasion, and it also had a separate room where they serve food, like pizza or something, with a separate entrance. There were a bunch of families in there -- like with kids -- and NO smoke. It might accomodate a mix of older and younger (sub-21) climbers.

Don't let somebody's critque of your TR discourage you. As noted, there are fifty appreciative readers for every one who takes offense at your misstating the difficulty of a particular pitch or who criticizes the entire effort as a cheastbeat. Internet TR's are going to meet the same kind of response as telling your story in any other medium: beauty is in the eye of the beholder and every different reader is going to come away with their own impression of the report -- based as much in their own experience and attitude as in the experience and attitude reflected in the trip report itself. Some climbers view it as cheastbeating to report anything about what you have climbed, whereas others believe it is selfish and conceited not to do so. And still others like to bitch and call each other names no matter what the topic of discussion. I'm glad that trip reports on this board take lots of different forms, and I value the tale of an M7 grade VI epic on the south face of The Tooth just as much as a brief note of current conditions on the White Salmon Glacier.

Tom- I too live in the neighborhood, as does ChucK. Wedgewood Broiler might be OK, but the one time I went in there (a thursday night, not a tuesday night) it was pretty crowded and my impression was that there were only small tables and no large ones. 'Might have to cruise by on a tuesday night to check it out. There is a smaller place, more of a tavern, accross the street. I forget the name just now, but on this same rekon outing I went in there and the owner was quite friendly to the idea of our bringing a group in there. It, too, deserves another look. We have in the past been to Fiddler's Inn a couple of times, but don't get a certain unnamed individual started on how the owner is a pig and going there is as good as supporting Saddam Hussein.

C'mon folks. I think the premise is correct: there are some posters who seem to clutter up nearly every thread on this site, rarely have anything to say and are just plain annoying. I've been busy at work lately, so my contribution to this situation has diminished and so too has my reading, but it appears to me that in the last week or so some of the contstant B.S. has moderated somewhat. And my list of the top 5 offenders might differ from yours. But I think most of us would agree that it is indeed the case that some people seem to do little but piss all over the place. Jon and Timmy have made it clear that they want this site to be a home for those who are bored at work and want to spray, just as much as they want it to be a place for serious discussion of climbing, but just as you have a right to suggest B.S.er goes elsewhere, B.S.er has a right to want not to find the same inane B.S. all the time.

I rushed home to see the report on the 5:00 news tonight. "See" is the wrong word, since we don't have cable and TV reception is very poor at our house, but through the snowstorm on my TV it looked as if they used Mike's pictures and I heard them mention that the "lost" climbers got down on their own -- a small victory, perhaps, but I for one am glad that this fact was reported. And my guess is that NewsTips and King5News got that piece of information from cascadeclimbers.com. Here's to cc.com and to King5News and NewsTips and their interest in talking with us!

Mike-I thought your first description was perfectly clear: I'm glad you guys got down OK, and under your own power. Way to go! Newstips-Did you notice that S&R was quoted as saying that the avalanche hazard was "extreme" at the time? Yes there are signs all over the trail to the bottom of big four, warning of an extreme avalanche hazard. But I think that the current hazard rating was either "considerable" or "moderate," which is relatively low on the hazard scale. In addition, the way the incident was reported it sounded as if they were at least a couple of nights overdue. Despite my reading from this bulletin board to him, my office mate insists they spent at least two nights out and maybe three! He also got the impression they were poorly equipped, but it doesn't sound that way to me.

Iain- I have skied the Anniversary Glacier a dozen times and I've never been worried about falling in a crevasse. There have sometimes been a few slots showing, and the ice bulge at the snout of the glacier just about aways shows, but I've never seen anyone use a rope on it or heard of anybody having any problems. I've been there in December in a year that had a good early season snowpack, and as late as the end of May. It is a very pleasant run, about 2500 feet high. There are dozens of good ski runs in the Cerise Creek drainage, and just about all the other creeks off the high portion of that Duffy Lake road also offer good skiing.

Newstips- Locator units would shorten or facilitate a search and rescue operation in lots of cases, so it is hard for me argue against their use except to say that it is possible some people might be MORE likely to get themselves in trouble if they were carrying a locator unit and thought, somewhere in the back of their mind, that they could call help by simply activating the device. I believe this in fact HAS happened with the use of cell phones, though I am not aware of any statistics.

Sounds like the PERFECT forecast to me....

Newstips- I think you asked whether the high frequency of search and rescue incidents is due to poor judgment on the part of the climbers or the families of the climbers involved. While that may be a good topic for discussion, I am not sure you will ever get a solid answer to the question. Indeed, I think it is arguable whether or not there are too many search and rescue operations at all and, if there are, I don't think you can pin the "blame" on climbers or on their families. It is certainly true that many people who might be said insufficiently equipped or perhaps lacking proper skill are likely to throw themselves at Big Four Mountain, because it has drawn a lot of attention recently and it is easy to get to. More or less the same thing could be said for Mount Rainier, though I don't think it has received particular attention recently but, rather, it has always received a lot of attention. I have no idea who the current climbers (in this last incident) were, but if they ran into trouble higher up on the face they should have been able to dig a snow cave and been relatively warm if stuck overnight because the snow itself serves as insulation if the snow cave is properly constructed. However, if they got stuck low down on the face, where there is very little snow, they might not have this option. Anyway, most of the time we travel with sufficient equipment that we could survive one, two, or even three nights out without any additional shelter though that is not always the case. I always tell my wife about these incidents and hope to show her that if I am one day be found "overdue," she should not assume I am in serious trouble (though, in 35 years of climbing, I have only once been seriously overdue and on that occasion I was sitting in a tent reading books while waiting for an Alaskan bush pilot to pick me up but the weather was too poor for him to land). Should the family in this case or in the prior incident on Mount Rainier have worried about them? Of course. Should they call for a rescue? Probably - what would you do if it were a member of your family? But the response of the rangers at Mount Rainier, that was reported to be "they are only overdue-there is not yet cause for alarm and we will wait a day before we launch a search and rescue operation," was probably well founded.. Where the comment is made that it is all-too-common, I would have to agree that it is regrettable any time that someone runs into trouble, but I don't think it would be fair to say that, as a rule, the "fault" lies with the climbers or the family members. It is simply a fact that if people are going to be drawn to the woods to go hunting, hiking, snowmobiling, or climbing, some are going to run into trouble and there are going to be search and rescue operations. It is not all that different than a call for help in the city: sometimes your car breaks down and you need a tow truck; sometimes your mother calls the police to go check on you because your phone doesn't work; some times you may actually be missing because you ran away from home or became a victim of some kind of crime or accident. The difference is that the general public thinks it is irresponsible to go mountain climbing in the first place, so there is always this "slant" to any story, whether it is stated by the news media or not. Mattp