mattp

One thing to be aware of, though, is that I think a common feeling in the Wenatchee area is that the Post Intelligencer (wasn't it them?) completely misconstred the story about the botched investigation into that sex scandal a couple years ago, and that there was in fact serious sexual abuse going on and the expose was in part fabricated so that some Seattle reporters could promote their own careers. A story that was critical of law enforcement in the area may in fact only embolden them as their neighbors perceive them as victims of the Seattle media and talk about how they hate those god damned 206'ers anyway!

There will be another story on Fred in tomorrow's Post Intelligencer.

Erik- In my view, the attitude problem in the Leavenworth district is coming from the top, and I'm not sure a news article in the Seattle papers would really help all that much -- the district ranger certainly rebuffed my attempt to address the issue, as well as attempts made by the Access Fund and other people. But an article comparing how various ranger districts and other jurisdictions deal with climbers around the state might be interesting.

I'd say a good story would be one about search and rescue operations: what kind of folks are rescued and where, who participates in SAR operations, why they do it, etc.

And from Tuesday: catbird and DPS: newstips and alpentom

That cat of yours can really pack 'em away, huh?

Had you been there last night, you could have met the fathers of cc.com for the real story... jon and tim

You could be right that there are times when the Dry Gulch route would make a good descent route, Jim, but I would stress (as you pointed out) that it would depend on conditions. A friend of mine once climbed the gully between the two north ribs, which i think tops out quite close to the summit, and he reported that even from there, it took a fairly long time to traverse the peak and reach the Dry Gulch descent; he said a descent back down the North Face (not even the NW Ridge) would have been much easier on that particular occasion and he opined that he would plan to descend the N. Face rather than the Dry Gulch if he ever went back.

Tom- Actually, I believe the NW Ridge descent is probably both easier and quicker than traverssing over the summit and descending the dry gulch route. I have talked to folks who have done it both ways, and it sounds as if it is not exactly trivial to get from the top of any of the N. Face routes over the crest of the peak and down to the Dry Creek descent route. The Spindrift is on the far right side of the N. Face, topping out a fairly long way from the actual summit, so this would be all the more true for that route. Although Mike and Matt had the unfortunate luck of getting sucked down into the wrong drainage, the NW Ridge is actually a fairly reasonable descent for anybody who belongs on the North Face in the winter!

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??