mattp

Retro: I mean no disrespect by using those terms. But when you decide to take the law into your own hands, when you state that you don't care what anybody else thinks, and when you say you are going to keep going back and removing the offending bolts if they reappear, I call that vigilantism. And when you and others talk in terms that sound like a holy war against excessive bolting, and when you and they suggest that they are showing great leadership and trying to enlighten the uninformed masses, I call that a heroic crusade. Keep up the good fight – I mean that because you make a lot of good points -- but if you are going to be such an aggressive and vocal advocate you will have to accept the fact that not everybody likes everything about what you are doing. Matt

And part two of my question: what can be done when the removal of offensive bolts does not seem to accomplish what I believe to be the desired result: the alteration of bolting practices? I have held out the Whipsaw incident as an example more than once on this board. I believe it took place over ten years ago, and I believe that it did absolutely nothing to stem the tide of bolting in Frenchmen's Coulee. In my mind, it is clear that the removal of bolts that are perceived as offensive does not solve the ongoing problem although it may be satisfying.

Dennis, I believe the question is, or at least that it should be, what should be done where it appears that most climbers are in general agreement about what is acceptable, yet there seem to be a few individuals who proceed to install bolts in places where they should know that most of their peers will object. I don't think Puget or anybody else is trying to defend sport climbing here – that is another topic.

Dr. Zorn is the man. Or at least he used to be (my information is ten years old and there may be some young upstart who is taking his place).

Haireball - I used to climb without prescription glasses, and it seemed to me that even the best sunglasses available would interfere with my ability to see the details of the rock such as the "holds" on a slab climb so I would endure the brightness and glare in the interest of being able to climb better. Now I have to wear prescription glasses and I am reluctant to try tinted glasses because I fear that I would have the same reduced detail. How do the "phototropics" perform for you -- is there any reduction in visible detail?

Retro: I mean no disrespect by using those terms. But when you decide to take the law into your own hands, when you state that you don't care what anybody else thinks, and when you say you are going to keep going back and removing the offending bolts if they reappear, I call that vigilantism. And when you and others talk in terms that sound like a holy war against excessive bolting, and when you and they suggest that they are showing great leadership and trying to enlighten the uninformed masses, I call that a heroic crusade. Keep up the good fight – I mean that because you make a lot of good points -- but if you are going to be such an aggressive and vocal advocate you will have to accept the fact that not everybody likes everything about what you are doing. Matt

I use both 50's and 60's but I actually carry the 50's more often. For mountain climbing and even most rock climbing, it is VERY RARE that I come up short and am unable to simulclimb or do whatever is necessary to make it work. For snow climbs or alpine ice the 60's are better, but in most situations I prefer the 50's because I just like the smaller coils a little better.

I am sorry to see this discussion degenerate, yet again, into the same old mud slinging. I believe the anonymity of the internet has not served us well and that posters on "both" sides of this discussion seem to be more intent on insulting each other than addressing the issues at hand. I realize there are not actually two sides because Puget is right that everyone here seems to AGREE that bolts should not be used where "natural" pro can be had, that grid-bolting is a mess, and that the Icicle canyon in particular has been overdone, so what we are discussing more than anything else is personal communication styles and how can we address these issues. To the bolt pullers engaged in what they proclaim to be a heroic crusade: vigilantism alone is not going to solve anything. Consider this case in point: do you think that Mitch's pulling bolts on Whipsaw, over ten years ago, helped slow the proliferation of new bolts at Vantage? Of course not. I am not necessarily sorry that he did it, and I am not sorry to see the bolts removed from DDD last year because in my view they clearly did not belong there. But please try to incorporate your "restoration" efforts into some broader plan of attack which will include some effort to actually work with or communicate with those who you feel are acting irresponsibly. Please try to tone down the rhetoric so that there may be some broader appreciation of your message, because calling sport climbers pussies or saying that a bunch of irresponsible kids got a new toy for Christmas and are using it to ruin the world is just not helping to change anything. Nobody who doesn't already agree with you is convinced by this and it only divides climbers. To those who criticize these bolt choppers for being chest beaters: see above. Has your vehement criticism of such activities as the grandstanding over the DDD restoration tamed the rhetoric any? No. Where you descend into name calling and taunt, you are just as divisive as those whom you criticize. Do you think these guys are going to back off because you call them jerks or do you think that somebody who believes these guys are acting heroically is going to be convinced by such quips and jabs? Lets focus on the fact that it seems all but a very small number of climbers are more or less in agreement about what is appropriate at a place like Castle Rock or the Pearly Gates. Along with seeking to curb bolting practices, let's try to minimize the spread of "Frenchmen's Folly" -- by which I mean the proliferation of conflict and hyperbole that seems to prevent any coordinated effort to solve real problems (the proliferation of sport-climbing may also be some kind of folly but it is not specific to Frenchmen's Coulee). In Icicle Creek, what can we do so that "restoration" efforts may be followed with some progress toward changing current practices and actually reducing the need for future route restoration? [ 06-19-2002, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: mattp ]

And here I thought I could employ strong-arm tactics and hijack pubclub to a more centralized location. But I got busted mishandling the poll box so now I'll shamelessly refuse to give up and I'm adding my vote to the tally -- a vote for the Zoo. Yes, parking is easier at the Alki, but I bet everybody gets a place within three blocks of the place. Of course, should there be some stronger strong-arming, I'll make it over to West Seattle. And Sean -- calling the Zoo stinky and cheap? That is a low blow, especially coming from such a fanatical devotee of the Alki.

It is a very scenic route. If you opt for an extra night on the mountain, there is beautiful camping around St. Andrews Park or up toward Tokaloo Rock. As you ascend along Puyallup Cleaver, the route descriptions mention either going onto the glacier at something like 9,500 or going over St. Andrews Rocks, and I would definitely opt for the glacier if possible (there is some steep terrain with some nasty fall potential in the climb over St. Andrews Rocks). Unless the situation has changed drastically since I was there, I would avoid descending the Sickle. When I went down that way one July we found it to require some technical downclimbing which caused us to loiter way too long beneath a whole bunch of seracs that had sun on them. If you want to be smug about the whole thing, climb to Liberty Cap and blow off Columbia Crest. Most of the "climber's climbs" on Rainier go to Liberty Cap and up there you won't find a bunch of guided parties and people crawling around on all fours just so they can sign their name into "the book."

You can see that I can't count. I neglected to tally Puget's vote AGAINST the Zoo. But it sounds as if air supply wasn't as high on other voters' list of priorities. Can we sit by a window so he can stick his head out side for a gulp of fresh air once in a while? By the way, from I-5 southbound, it is also exit 168-A, Boylston/Roanoke. At the end of the off-ramp, drive straight ahead on Boylston (along side the highway) a couple of blocks. Then turn right on E. Lynn. [ 06-18-2002, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: mattp ]

So it looks like about 6 or 8 votes for the Zoo, one for Hooters (Trask doesn't count because he never shows up), and one for the Alki. The Eastlake Zoo Tavern is at Eastlake and Lynn, at 2301 Eastlake Ave E., and I think it would be appropriate to honor Jeff's heartfealt request that we go to his favorite hang. Driving directions: From I-5 northbound, take the Lakeview Boulevard Exit, exit #168A (Dwayner: this is the next exit after where your car will pull to the left, trying to go to Hooters, and it is on the right side of the Highway so you better be ready to tug on the steering wheel!). Turn left on Lakeview Boulevard, pass beneath the highway, and proceed to East Lynn. Turn left, drive down the hill a couple of blocks, and the Zoo is on the corner of Eastlake. It is a dense residential neighborhood; parking is tight.

Sorry, I though Randy was one of the guys from Liberty Ridge (I haven't been paying too much attention to the news, and as you can tell from my post I am only speculating based on general impressions).

The Silver Star glacier is not heavily crevassed but there a few slots and by mid-summer, there has been one that runs nearly all the way accross the area where you head up toward the summit.

I don't know about Randy Grandstaff ‘s qualification (didn't he have a great deal of Cascade mountaineering experience, but little more than that?) but I believe that an analysis of the accidents on Liberty Ridge over the years will support the conclusion that most of the accidents happen with parties whose members have little experience on routes of that size and seriousness (few other Cascade climbs even come close and there is nothing like it in California or Colorado). The ridge is 6,000 feet high, it is steep enough that a fall from just about anywhere on it could result in a death-fall, and most parties who climb it are not comfortable with the idea of down-climbing the route. Carrying big packs, many parties climb very slowly and this leaves them more exposed to falling objects and possible weather problems; and many are tempted to stay put or try to push over the top rather than to retreat when things go sour. So inexperience may not be the correct word, but in the case of Liberty Ridge, many parties are indeed minimally "qualified" in my opinion.

For fair weather mountaineering antics, consider taking NO bivvy sac. If your sleeping bag gets wet from the dew overnight, it will still weigh less than the sleeping bag and bivvy sac, and you can dry it out very quickly by hanging it in the sun either in the morning before your late start or in the afternoon after you return from your summit climb. Should the forecast be incorrect, bring a couple of garbage bags or climb into your pack and put on your raincoat -- breathable or not, you will certainly survive one night this way and you can then high-tail it for home. In my view, the main drawback of this approach is being bitten by bugs, but they are usually relatively inactive at night. I also have a problem with mice sometimes.

This is pure speculation on my part, but I would think there could be situations where using a chest harness with a seat harnes could AVOID a spinal injury. The German alpine club used to recommend the use of a chest harness only, on the theory that this would elongate rather than compress your spine in a fall, and I have often wondered whether the use of a chest harness with the seat harness might sometimes place less stress on your spine -- such as in a fall where you are caught with your body oriented somewhat perpendicular to the line of the rope. For glacier travel with a large pack, and probably for general mountaineering as well (not so much for rock climbing, without a pack) a full body harness might be a good idea because it has the tie-in point higher than on a normal seat harness, and thus you can be more assured of ending up in a vertical orientation. I know some people on this board have argued that this wil cause unnecessary whipping of the spine, but when carrying a pack I believe the possible benefit probably outweighs the possible risk.

It is now in my basement, awaiting a postive I.D.

One boot, found Saturday June 8, at the parking lot for 3:00 Rock.

quote: Originally posted by David Parker: I'd recommend staying off the glaciers if he is inexperienced. ... On the other hand Sahale has a pretty benign glacier and puts you in a spectacular position! I'd recommend staying off any rock climb with an older, inexperienced climber, and I'd look for a climb that doesn't involve thousands of feet of talus. But, all other things being equal, go for the "pretty benign glacier" for the scenic value. Sahale, Mount Ruth, Mount Watson, aren't there good climbs up in Royal Basin? ...

What ChucK said.

I've climbed on a pair of 50 meter x 9mm ropes for years and I have very rarely found them to come up short. Now that 60 meter is becoming the standard rope length, I would expect to encounter rock climbs with anchors at 60 meter invervals, but for more general mountaineering and for the vast majority of climbs, 50 meter ropes are fine and the coil is just a little more manageble. However, you may have difficulty finding 50 meter ropes unless you special order them.

Allison, you must have a way with the cops. I too have been drinking there for ten years or so, and my experiences at this time of the year have not all been positive. But perhaps if we were in the main area, as opposed to having one of those "illegal" campfires around the point, they might let us stay until 10:00. And of course, Tuesday night is not the same as Friday or Saturday. It IS a great place to hang out and watch a sunset, and we could even barbeque some tofu or something.

London, Ohio? What could possibly take you there?

Dave is probably right. Golden Gardens is an ok place for beer and barbeque at other times of the year but this is graduation season and the cops usually come down on it pretty heavy during the month of June. There was a public meeting on this topic last week, and I bet that was a precursor for even MORE enforcement than usual because the only people who ever show up at those meetings are neighborhood types who whine that those damn kids are ruining our respectable city and threatening our pursuit of solitude in the middle of Seattle.