mattp

Dru - Are you sure that the North Cascades are not part of the Canadian Rockies???? Damn.

fhf- Rat has said, twice, that he is also against the fee demo program. (Edited to note he said he was against the permits as well.)

I believe that when I climbed the route I did in fact drop something like fifty feet to pass around some rocks, but as everyone has stated -- it was obvious where to go. I'm guessing that Mike's "warning" is based on some confusion that actually happened more than once, but maybe at another time of the year or something.

On a Northwest Airlines flight, the pilot once announced that we were over the Canadian Rockies while we were still over the North Cascades, though we may have been on the Canadian side of the border at that point. Twenty minutes or a half hour later, we passed over the Bugaboos... That "loser" from Utah is right. It is ALL the rockies.

Rat- You are right that we have to pay to maintain our public lands. That's why I pay taxes. I don't think that enjoying these lands should become a privilege for those who can afford it. -Diana

Rat- You offer some good information to this discussion and I can't say that I disagree with the idea that forest management practices have improved in recent years. And not only do you offer good information, but I find much of what you state to be appealing. However, I would still argue that well over 90% of our old growth forest is gone -- and will never be replaced by any tree farm. I don't know the numbers, but I bet it is the case that over 75% of the public lands in the state of Washington are cris-crossed by roads built with public dollars (almost ALL of the private-owned land is completely lost). I bet it is also accurate that well over 90% of the original salmon spawning habitat has been irretrievably lost and the native productivity is not expected to recover any time in the foreseeable future. I could be wrong as to any of these statistics, but you get the idea. I am glad they are finally improving land management practices but, as you note, there is real reason to worry that the forest management practices will only get worse with George Bush as president. Aside from resource management issues, this is a discussion of the practice of requiring fees for the public use of public lands. As my wife stated, I believe that there is something fundamentally wrong when we have, as a nation, subsidized private industry in the resource extraction business for a hundred years and now we, as individuals, must pay to simply walk and camp on the same lands. -Matt

I agree, Ed. One of the articles I read quoted an avalanche tech as saying there was a funky layer left over from a warm spell in November, and it sounds as if that layer may be bad news!! Clearly, there is an unusual potential for large and dangerous avalanches this season and Klenke is right in the respect that, after two serious accidents, a cautious person might want to stay away from the Selkirks right now. I would not, however, second guess the judgment of either the Canadian Avalanche Association or the leaders of this high school group in connection with this tragedy. Avalanche hazards are difficult if not impossible to predict with certainty.

Don't tell anybody, but yes, I was back. This time with another partner (I won't tell who). Once again, we were turned back by warm conditions - wet rock slabs with slush on them. Who knows: we may yet have winter conditions but even when they forecast a freezing level of 2,000 feet it doesn't seem to be frozen at 4,000 feet this winter!!! By the way, just in case anybody is wondering: N Face of Sperry Peak looks like a mediocre climb and it is protected by a forest of slide maple and devil's club, so there is really no reason to go there unless one is a true afficionado. I enjoyed my brush-beatings, however, and I am anxious to return. I enjoyed both outings and both partners expressed interest in going back -- would anybody like to join us? Call me at 1-800-devil's-club.

This is not really Mattp--we share a computer . It is Diana instead and I haven't registered to post on this site. First of all, we subsidized the logging industry for decades. That industry was one of the most heavily subsidized in history. Now we have to pay to enjoy the outdoors. It was $70 for camping and parking permits for four adults and two kids!! We camped at Eight Mile Lake for two nights. I kept wondering how many families could afford these expenses and teach the next generation to appreciate the mountains. Why should we have to pay Disneyland prices for this?

Rat- Thread creap is a serious issue on this board and I should be ashamed of myself for persuing an off-topic debate (I might even have to move this thread to "SPRAY"), but what are you trying to say here? Do you think the Forest Service has in fact systematically protected the mountain forest environment in their management of logging practices on Nationaal Forest lands around Leavenworth? Yes, I sloppily painted with a broad brush--not only on this issue but on the law enforcement and public relations topics as well, but how is it that you disagree? -Matt

A new discussion of this old issue may be due, but I wonder whether it belongs here. This historic thread is, in my view, most interesting in that one can compare positions taken here and then in the "DDD Restored" thread, and in then in subsequent discussions: Cavey, for instance, saying he wasn't in support of chopping the bolts; Retro, saying he would only chop them if there was "concensus" that he should do so (they were both involved in the intentionally confrontational presentation of their position on this issue after they removed the bolts). I, too, have changed my position on this issue in that I stated I wasn't into having the bolts removed from DDD at that time although I have later said that I am glad that it was done but I just didn't like the way in which the discussion was handled. I'm not sure there is anything sacrosanct about an old cc.com thread (after all, it is only the internet...) but somehow I feel sad seeing an old discussion unearthed so we can just heap on more of the same old arguments (not that Max, Chris, Dwayner, JayB, Cracked or even Trask haven't said anything of value on this issue or that Cavey's inquiry about Garfield was at all out-of-line).

Hiromi- You have hit on a sensitive topic here. The Forest Service has touted the permit system, with the associated restriction on the number of parties allowed to enter the Enchantment Plateau on any given day, as a way to reduce overall impact on a sensitive area. While it has certainly had some measure of success in this regard, I agree with Cavey and anybody else who is against it. I think the fees are excessive (a recent two-night trip with a party of six riding in two vehicles cost over $70.00 in permit fees) and the restriction on the number of parties is, in my opinion misguided (personally, I believe it would be more effective to ban camping in the upper part of the Enchantment basin and allow camping only in narrowly outlined areas at the lower lakes). Also, the system arguably has a greater impact on climbers, who require certain weather and snow conditions for their trips, than it might on "lowly" hikers; and the Leavenworth ranger district has in my experience been generally unfriendly to climbers for thirty years (currently they have a particularly obnoxious ranger who patrols the parking lots to enforce the parking fee and who, as Cavey noted, seems uninterested in pursuing vandals and thieves). Lastly, to many of us who enjoy outdoor recreation, it seems particularly ironic that the Forest Service (Deforest Service as Cavey rightfully calls them) would restrict entry into the Alpine Lakes in the name of preserving the fragile wilderness environment while at the same time they seem completely uninterested in placing any restrictions on destructive logging practices. The "consequences" are a ticket and fine. I don't know the dollar amount. -Matt

Yo Dwayner: I was going to call you names and all, but here you're being all gracious and everything. See you there.

Or bring them to PubClub and show them how you have so many charming and responsible friends.

Klenke- In light of what happened, I suppose it is hard to argue with the statement that it was "not a wise place to be when avvy hazard is considerable." I will attempt to do so anyway, but pretty much I will just restate what Alpine K already said. First of all, it looks as if they were traveling in an avalanche run-out zone. I think that photo posted by Snowboy had the vertical element exaggerated a little bit, but in any case who among us who are active during the winter has not ventured up the Alpental Valley or otherwise traversed avalanche runout zones during "considerable" hazard conditions? At Roger's Pass, I bet the conditions are rated "considerable" or above throughout most of an average winter and literally thousands of people have enjoyed a tour up the Connaught Creek Valley in these kinds of conditions without a problem. I believe there are few if any avalanche experts who would seriously argue that the party should not have been where they were on that day. Second of all, I wonder if you may be thinking that the size of the avalanche slopes in that valley makes travel there more questionable than other locations. I don't think that particular valley has significantly more large avalanche tracks across it than do most drainages along the crest of the Selkirks or even the higher portions of the Cascades, for that matter. I don't think it was necessarily more "obvious" that those large slopes were more dangerous than some smaller ones nearby though a small avalanche would not have crossed the valley and caught that party on the far side of a creek and it is certainly true that large avalanche slopes pose a more obvious hazard and most avalanche accidents involving several victims occur on large slopes. In my own assessment and route-finding, I try to bear in mind that many avalanche accidents occur on small slopes, often in the woods, that you might not immediately recognize as hazardous. If you equate size with danger, or at least if you equate lack of big open slopes with safety, I think you are making a mistake. We can all debate what should or should not have been done whenever there is an accident, and I acknowledge that it is difficult to argue with your assessment, but I think it was a little simplistic. I am hoping to encourage people to learn more about the hazard they may be facing when traveling in the mountains in the winter and I am arguing that learning to distinguish relatively safe routes or conditions from relatively unsafe ones involves a lot more than thinking "considerable" and above is dangerous, or that big avalanche tracks should be avoided.

Meaning what? It doesn't take an avalanche expert to know that those slopes are periodically swept by avalanches (that's why they are large and open slopes devoid of vegetation), but are you suggesting that they should not have been there or that there was some other obvious problem with their party management or something?

Most people who go day-skiing at Rogers Pass head up either the Connought Creek or the Illecillewaet River drainage. Connought Creek is right behind the Best Western Motel, and perhaps twenty minutes up the valley is an obvious bowl to the left, guarded by a moraine. You climb up over the moraine to enter the bowl on the north side of Cheops Mountain, where it sounds as if the accident may have occured. It is a very easy place to get to, and perhaps the most ovious touring destination at Roger's Pass. The slopes are generally pretty moderate, though the bowl is ringed by cliffs. The hazard was today rated "considerable" at or above treeline. Part of the avalanche forecast reads as follows: DISCUSSION: Another 10cm of snow overnight is adding to the light, yet steady snowfalls that have accumulated since midweek. The new snow has fallen under mild and at times windy conditions in a warm southwest flow. Thus, a total of 30 cm load of storm snow is contributing to the stiffening of the slab over a surface hoar layer responsible for last weeks extensive avalanche cycle. Snowprofile work done yesterday concentrated on West and North aspects both around the 2100 meter range. Stability tests showed consistent failures on the Jan 20 surface hoar with scores in the moderate to hard range. The new snow instability described yesterday, now over 30 cm deep, was also observed on the west aspect. Given the recent and past wind events, these are the layers of highest concern at this time, especially on lee slopes or near large terrain features. Ski tests easily released the Jan 20th layer on unsupported rolls on the north aspect... (This is quoted from the Canadian Avalanche Association Website, but the same information would have been available at the Warden's office accross the street from that Best Western Motel.) If you ski much in the backcountry, this is sobering indeed.

Billy- How could you say this looked "interesting?"

EJohnson's second photo is the Grand, North Face.

Plexus- From the forecast, it sounds as if you can leave the snowshoes at home. That is why I hope to (maybe) get out for a snow climb. Persis should be good right now.

Phil- What I'm saying is that there is a LOT of roadside skiing up there. The following two ski runs, both nearly 3,000', are both easily skiable as day trips at this time of year without a snowmobile. Later in the Spring, I'd be for using a snowmobile to head up Ryan River or something for a longer trip, though. By the way: any guesses?

I think hauling a snowmobile up there -- and then using the thing -- would be more trouble than it is worth. There are great roadside ski destinations right off Roads that ARE driveable all winter, and if that isn't good enough there is always Pemberton Helicopters.

Jim and Colin got mine. It is the South Peak of Granite Mountain. The main buttress is 5.10, and the one to the right of it 5.7.

Ray- It is not in the Snow Creek or Ingalls Creek drainages. It's not Dragontail.