mattp

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

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. I and others posted a response in the other thread: "Getting Lost & Found." Mattp

I agree, Sisu. Snowmobiles DO have their place and the anti-snowmobile attitide of many backcountry skiers can be obnoxious. However, the snowmobiler's that climbers and skiers are complaining about are not working but are playing, so part of your argument doesn't really hold up and it is inescapable that snowmobiles are loud and smelly and their use has a greater impact on our experience in the outdoors than we do on theirs. There are questions of politeness on both sides of the fence but the major issue, I think, is one of balance. I don't ski on logging roads very much, and they are mostly unable to get to the alpine areas in Washington -- indeed I can think of very few places where I want to go skiing or climbing and there is a conflict. Sure, I have to share the first couple miles of a trip into Colchuck Lake with them, but I am more than willing to do that. And yes, I might prefer to ski the south side of Mount Baker without them, but then again I can climb the north side instead and they are not allowed there (though occasionally they do violate the boundaries of their permitted area). In BC, however, the mountains are more snowmobile-friendly and there are not the same restrictions on their use throughout most of the mountain areas. I think AlpineK is right that it is getting harder and harder to get away from them in the Coast Range, and there appears to be no end to this trend in sight.

Good going. Somebody in your party must have been a real snowplow!! Training for Saint Elias?

If I could, I'd go with you, Cavey. Any of you backcountry folks who want to see some real mountains on your skis ought to go with him. It is the promised land up there and well worth the drive.

He DOES have a point, though. Snowmobiles DO suck. In addition to being noisy and smelly and taking people who arguably do not belong there into "our" backcountry, they break down all the time and you have to get a really expensive one if you want to be able to ride them through deep or sticky snow. Don't take one very far into the backcountry unless you have two of them along with you or you are prepared to walk home.

I have a Feathered Friends helios jacket that is about ten years old and I believe it may be roughly equivalent. I very rarely use it because it isn't warm enough and the shell is so fragile. The reason I carry a down coat is generally that I'm planning to hang out in cold weather, and I usually want to be able to just pull it on and go about my business without a thought of being cold. I do not wear it when active, but when I am at a rest stop or at camp, and the helios just isn't quite warm enough for that purpose. Also, I am afraid to sit back against a rock or walk past a bush or do anything else that might rip the shell of the lighter jacket. For my purposes, it is usually worth it to carry a heavier garment that is warmer and tougher.

If your cat is like ours, all you have to do is put her up there and she'll jump down immediately. If that fails, keep a spray bottle nearby and nail her with a little mist.

Fleb-what board have you been hanging out on? Half of all cc.com postings do nothing but stir up animosity for someone's self-amusement so why should it be any different when we are talking about pubclub? The weekly argument is obviously ridiculous and serves no purpose but to allow some folks to think they are asserting their selves. On the smoke issue, though, I'd say the smoke-hating weenies are just as guilty of this as are those that don't want to go to fern bars or insist on a venue in their own neighborhood.

King5News was there and she says she's going to run a new series, tales from pubclub, sunday evenings at 7:00. Those of you who didn't show are not going to be featured in any of the first ten episodes. King5News

Klenke, you speaketh with forked tongue. PubClub is an extremely important matter and you shouldn't even mention changing the venue at this late of an hour. You are only encouraging that shameless Icegirl, at poor Dave Schuldt's expense. Ten demerits. At this point, it has got to be Al's. And for you non-smokers who can't handle it, our apologies. I don't think it is actually all that bad there -- certainly not as bad as it was at Teddy's on that one out of the three times we've been there that a party of smokers sat right next to us -- but what do I know? I smoke cigars (not at a pubclub, of course).

Klenke- I have described this trip on this board before, I think, so a search may yield a more complete description. The Burgdorfer description is, I believe, out of date. Anyway, here goes: 1. Park at the wide spot where the railroad tunnel comes out, east of Stevens Pass, just after the divide highway rejoins a few miles east of the pass. 2. Walk east on the highway a couple hundred yards and head up the logging road departing the S. side of the highway. 3. Follow that loggin road into a clearcut. For Arrowhead, follow it to the top left corner of that clearcut; for Jim HIll, follow it to the top right corner of the clearcut (or make switchbacks directly up to that corner). 4.a. For Jim Hill, follow the logging road rightward from the top right corner of the clearcut, and at the end of the road enter the woods, dropping slightly in a slide area, to cross Henry Creek. 4.b. For Arrowhead, take the logging road up and left from the top left corner of that initial clearcut. Cross a ravine and then head uphill at first good opportunity (you can travel through woods or follow some branching roads) to reach a higher clearcut in a shallow bowl along the creek that created that ravine just mentioned. 5.a. For Jim Hill, climb up brushy slopes on the W side of the creek into the high basin near the top of Jim Hill Mountain. Most parties top out on the ridgecrest NE of the summit. This NE facing bowl often has significant avalanche hazard after a storm cycle. 5.b. For Arrowhead, climb to the top left corner of that clearcut and enter the woods, head left to reach a clearing below a rock outcrop, and climb up and around right side of the rock. 6.b. (Arrowhead) Head up and right again to a second clearing near the crest of the ridge. Climb that clearing (an avalanche path) or stay in woods to the left. 7. Ascend to summit. Arrowhead is the safer of the two trips if there is an avalanche hazard. The upper basin on Jim Hill has a classic, open ski bowl, though it it has been windy you may find better skiing on Arrowhead then on Jim Hill. Enjoy!

Yo Fool- Isn't that the same one they have on sale at all of the WLSCB stores, about one month out of every three? At $17.95? (Lately it has been the Islay, but same deal.)

Kurt- One thing to keep in mind about Grady's: I believe that once upon a time, Dan Larson promised to show up if we met there. So maybe we could put THAT on the burner for next week 'cause the appearance of Dan Larson at PubClub would surely be newsworthy!

Here MR. AT right here:

Not quite.