mattp

Off topic, but in 1977 Willi Unsoeld told me about Big Four in the winter being a classic cascade climb. I would guess somebody may have climbed it before Folsom and Carlstad but maybe not. He probably would have known about their climb. Is it possible that Folsom and Moore climbed routes on the North Face AND the North Ridge? It is not uncommon for climbers to climb multiple routes on the same feature.

I've often pondered sandblasting, but my guess is that the rocks are way harder than the concrete matrix, so you'd blast away the structure long before you made any significant improvement in the roughness of the stone. Maybe one could do some selective sandblasting with steel plates to protect the matrix, but that'd be tedious to say the least. If you figure out the environmentally friendly way to "restore" original texture, maybe the first pitch of Midway could use the same treatment! That thing is slicker than snot.

I don't think it is all that much longer to reach the West Ridge of Pidgeon via the south side of Snowpatch and I believe that parties headed over to camp below the Howsers often go this way as the easier of the two choices but it might add an hour. I am always surprised at how difficult people seem to find the Bug Snowpatch col when there is a little slop over some ice but in such conditions the alternate is probably a little less dangerous for folks who don't have a lot of snow and ice experience although it is not entirely without a bit of mountaineering in that (1) some scree and scrambling is involved where you round the ridge below the standard route on Snowpatch, (2) you'll encounter bits of bare ice that are not flat and crevasses a little higher where you get back on the glacier, and (3) a few more crevasse obstacles as you climb up past the south face of Pidgeon. I was amused to read about someone fallig in up to their armpits on the flats below Pidgeon and Snowpatch -- that is the only place where I have ever fallen in a crevasse and I, too, went in up to my armpits. The view of the south face of Snowpatch from the flats below it is spectacular.

I agree with you there-at least as far as the likely outcome. I heard on Bill Moyer last week that the pharmaceuticals have won an agreement with at least one of the committees involved that no legislation will allow any public program to negotiate drug prices and they also got an agreement to extend some patent periods. In that kind of a "reform" program the insurance companies can't be far behind. What we are likely to get is a massive government subsidy of private business, more consolidation and price setting control handed over to the "free market," more bankruptcies, and less essential services available for those who can't pay through the nose.

To Goatboy's comment I'd add that on the second pitch it is a little "non-intuitive" where you can avoid a 5.9 corner as you approach the belay by stepping out left.

Neither climb is particularly runout on any old school scale but both are slightly serious by modern standards. There is some vaguely run-out climbing that is maybe 5.7 on Orbit but the real runouts are on easier terrain up toward the top. Mary Jane is actually slightly more difficult to protect than Orbit. Both are good climbs.

You are right, Dick, that in at least a couple instances a bolting argument on cc.com has drawn ire or concern or direct intervention from rangers. Here too, however, we've seen them react more strongly to other matters such as when an anti-bolt crusader urged climbers to ignore falcon closures some years back or when some of dem dare adventure climbers wrote about using a machete in the wilderness or somebody else posted about doing something illegal with a law enforcement officer.

Dawg, I’ve talked to lots of land managers about bolting practices and a wide variety of management issues and I have yet to meet one who is really focused on this issue unless they are a climber as well as a land manager. I suppose we could argue whether it is appropriate but climbers asking for road access, bathrooms, and policing represent bigger immediate challenges and such things as our impact on vegetation and wildlife and our interaction with other recreational user groups also tend to draw more attention than bolts. I know: you or others have at times said that bolts are or should be seen as the key to all of these matters because if they took away all the bolts they wouldn’t have all those pesky climbers to worry about. There could be some truth to this but in simple cost/benefit terms I doubt it would pay off from a management perspective for all the rangers in the state to engage in an anti-bolt crusade and, even if it were successful, they’d then have to figure out how to stop drawing hunters and fishermen and mountain bikers…. You have your point, Dawg, but from my perspective John Frieh was right in hinting that the "ultimate" questions at least have something to do with questions of time and place and balance.

I think “the other camp” is a mysnomer here. What is “the other camp?” Is it a bunch of people who advocate indiscriminate bolting of every rock in sight regardless of any rational need for bolts? Do these people exist? To be sure, one could argue that “times have changed” or “I don’t need or want bolts the way YOU GUYS do” but is there an “other camp?” It appears that anybody who doesn’t share the same paradigm as these few posters who identify themselves as the "clean climbing warriors" or whatever is the correct creed must be in “the other camp.” Whether you are a new climber who admits they have insufficient experience to form an informed opinion on these matters, a seasoned old guy who really doesn’t care, a honed athlete who is training for the really hard stuff, or maybe even one of those guys who is actually installing bolts and thinks about whether they are doing right by the Earth or not, you are in “the other camp.” Are thees people in "the same camp?" Really? Off is right. The fundamental structure of these discussions is weird to begin with. Having said that, I see some wisdom in the message from our esteemed friend Bug, too. If bolting or for that matter any other practice employed by our user group becomes visually or geographically dominant it is likely to reach a threshold point where a response from land managers or some other group with an interest in these matters will follow. Thus far, the big reactions have been largely focused on impacts both more visually and geographically prominent than bolts: yes, bolts have been a cause for concern and anybody who has been climbing very long remembers the "fixed anchor ban" or press releases concerning climbers busted for using power drills in Wilderness areas. All of us have participated in discussions like this one dozens of times or more. But on a daily basis the concerns raised by non-climbers at least as often involve parked cars and people, or visual imipacts associated with chalk and rappel slings. The fact that bolts are more permanent than the visual blight caused by washed out approach trails or discarded athletic tape is a reality, but the bottom line in any “response” from land managers or any other group with an interest in these matters is based on the measure of our impact on whatever their concerns may be, and climbing "ethics" is usually relatively low on their list of concerns after visual impact, trash, sanitation, erosion, wildlife management, and user-conflicts. For the most part, our ethical concerns are of most interest to climbers and less of interest to land mangers or conservation groups or other recreational users unless, as in the case of bolts, they see limiting bolts as a way to limit climber numbers and the broader impact that is associated with a popular climb or climbing area. As an example, I'm pretty sure that the land managers in Leavenworth are just as worried about how to handle the climbing traffic on Outer Space as they are Condomorphamine Addiction. In our discussions here on cc.com, however, you might get the impression that Outer Space was a shrine while Condomorphamine was some kind of blight. There may be some basis for this, but to the extent that you think there is a basis that "truth" is of interest to climbers and not to non-climbers.

New Zealand would be a good choice. The Alps are awesome and there are some other interesting things like tramping some of the coastal treks and a cool volcano park on the North Island as well.

Sorry about that. 524, not 542. Anyway, I'm on furlough for half a day. Cragging IS my rehab with all this family stuff going on. We had five - I'm not kidding: five - houseguests for a week and I'm still on nursing duty and waanh waanh waanh... See you at the park 'n ride.

Cragging? I didn't think that was your thing. 542-xxxx.

I've been stuck at home with family business for weeks and have an away pass for tomorrow morning through mid afernoon. Any interest?

You come up with some weird stuff, Akha. The professor clearly did not ask for any of this . All those who are making such a big issue of this are acting on their own agenda: the news media who like a sensational story picked up on one line of a five minute answer to a question that one of their members asked to kick this thing off and people like our friends BillCoe, Bug and Ponderosa argue that the bottom line here is that the President should simply not comment on these issues. If anybody is to blame here, it is (gasp) THE POLICE OFFICER. There is no way any of you libertarians, cynical liberals, or gun nuts around here would ever justify your having been arrested for mouthing off to a police officer inside your own home. NO way ever. But when it is President Obama who has the nerve to comment on this: an outrage. He has acknowledged that it was a mistake to use the word "stupid" but so far I have yet to see anyone here who is critical of his remarks indicate they listed to the entire answer he provided and that they actually disagree with the message he was clearly trying to convey: he was not and did not suggest judging the police officer for that action, it is wrong (yest stupid) to arrest somebody for being unruly in their own home, and (oh my f'ing god) there is racism in America.

I initially thought this was a BS idea. After all, this is/was an important story of the day and he was asked about it in a press conference and if you ACTUALLY LISTENED TO HIS RESPONSE you would know that the furor is over a message that is taken from one sentence that has in fact been taken out of context. But you are right to a point: a black president's comments on racial politics are guaranteed to be taken out of context. I'm not sure whether, at the end of the day, I will conclude he "should" or "should not" have commented. Certainly it was risky at best to speak to that issue. But his message was in fact 100% correct in my view: he said that he wasn't judging or commenting as to whether the police acted in a racist fashion but it was stupid to arrest Gates. As I heard on the radio today: a gaff is when a politician actually speaks the truth.

Nope. I read your response. Did you actually listen to Obama's statement before you pronounced it a "knee jerk reaction?" Lets parse the words. The whole thing.

Question for Bill and anybody else who complains about Obama's remark: Did you actually listen to or watch the press conference? I listened to his answer to that Cambridge question and he specifically said (1) he didn't know the facts, and (2) that he was NOT calling the Cambridge police racists. Yes, he said "what we do know is that they acted stupidly" or some such thing, but if you actually listened to his answer you would know that his message has been more than a little distorted for the sake of a press mess. Seriously. Turn off Rush Limbaugh and George Will and listed to the actual press conference. Then ask yourself whether you might grow "agitated" if police officers were in your home and you proved it to them and they didn't then apologize for bothering you and then exit out your door. Especially you, Mr. 2nd amendment. One might argue he should not have offered any comment at all, but that is not what most "commentators" are saying. Certainly not somebody who said Obama offered a knee jerk response. In my view, it is THAT commentator who is offering the knee jerk response.

You may debate the need for a law, but what I have read suggests that, in general, conversations with passengers in the vehicle are less of a hazard. Passengers are physically invested in the safety of the trip and able to see when the driver needs to concentrate on driving or may have overlooked an oncoming hazard and will stop talking or even point out the danger. A cell phone caller continues the conversation and demands a response or attention completely oblivious to the circumstances of the car and driver.

Yup. On any big or even remotely serious climb that I ever did solo I experienced moments of serious misgiving that can only be described as "demoralizing." I climbed the NE Buttress, solo, in about 1983 and experienced more than one of these moments. Good on you for doing this one, BillA: I know lots of climbers who have said they thought it looked like a good solo objective but just a few who have actually done it that way. All of them report that demoralization experience, though not necessarily at the titanium pin. It is just a big piece of terrain.

I read something like this earlier in this thread and I'm a little unclear where this idea comes from. I for one don't expect anybody to "kiss my ass" just because I'm guiding or instructing. In general I DO expect climbing partners to contribute to the outing in some fashion and buying gas or carrying stuff or whatever are examples of ways someone can do that but, more than anything else, I want my partners to be safe and fun to spend time with whether they are less experienced or more. If I've offered to guide someone all I really expect is that they are ready to go when they said they would be, genuinely intend to do whatever it is that we agreed to do, and that they have a good attitude about the whole thing. Paying their share of gas or carrying loads is part of that but "kissing ass" is really not the point.

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has given the go ahead to open the South Face of Beacon Rock on Wednesday, July 22, 2009. The climbing area (south face) will open no later than 8am on the 22nd. If anyone has questions, contact the park. (509)427-8265

Years ago I had several friends who also liked the NW Ridge. All of them with backpacking backgrounds. Recently I have not heard anybody else to think much of the route. I guess the times have changed -- because the ridge hasn't.

I think the Superfly crux is significantly harder than the bonus pitch on Silent Running. The bolt is nearby but not as close as it could be. You will likely fall more than two feet if you peel but it is a pendulum type fall so you can backstep and avoid any sliding or scrape.

All I know is that this Josh guy better show up, on time and ready to haul all the gear, and he's gotta do what we say ... and HE BETTER NOT WEAR COTTON!!! (By the way: I disagree with Porter in that I don't think this thread is - or that it should be treated as - spray just because there have been some jokes and some jive. It is in the "climbers board" and it has some of the elements of a spray thread for sure, but we are in fact discussing how a beginning climber might find support and guidance on cc.com and there have been lots of good points made.)

Total Soul has more variety to it and is overall a better though slightly harder route and has a messy start. It DOES top out, and onto flat ground where you can take your shoes off and relax, so you'll like that about it. Silent Running does not "top out" because we looked up there and saw a mossy slab disappearing into steep woods and saw no reason to go up there. You're right: it wouldn't be hard, though.