mattp

April 29, 2002 Special Agent Roger Fuson, Region Six LEI Wenatchee, National Forest 215 Melody Lane Wenatchee, WA 98801 RE: Officer Larry Inthout Dear Mr. Fuson, I wish to complain about the conduct of one of your officers, a man whose name I believe is Larry Inthout. For over two hours yesterday, I observed him issuing citations for failure to displaiy the Northwest Forest Pass in the Snow Creek trail parking lot. I believe that in the course of enforcing the fee demonstration program he was going out of his way to intimidate and harass many of those who he met in the parking lot. I can't say he was ever rude or unprofessional, but I made a special effort to be friendly to him, I never lied to him, and I was doing absolutely nothing wrong. The officer accused me of lying, both directly to my face and to others in my party and in other parties, and he told me that I was suspicious -- that I looked like somebody who might be vandalizing cars in the parking lot. I observed Officer Inthout intimidating several other individuals, abruptly approaching them and firing away with probing questions about where they had been and what they knew about others in the area in manner of a tough detective trying to solve a crime. I believe he deliberately mislead one of my companions as to his intentions when he said "I'm not going to give you a ticket right now" in response to the question "are you going to give me a ticket?" (he finished copying my identification information, handed me and two others back their licenses, and promptly turned to the other and informed him he was going to issue the ticket). For two hours, all I wanted to do was to get away from this man, but I could not leave because I was waiting for a ride and the person whom I was to get a ride from was going to meet me in that parking lot. Come on, now. I was a forty five year old man, dressed in expensive clothing and carrying a pack full of expensive equipment. I went out of my way to engage in conversation with the officer, and I shared information about climbing in the area and about where he might advise other visitors to watch out for ticks and poison ivy -- information that I thought would be of interest to him as a public servant. I doubt that I fit the profile for one who would vandalize cars in a parking lot and I do not believe I should be made to feel like a criminal because I am in an area where there are cars whose owners are going to receive parking tickets. Very truly yours, Matt Perkins cc: Glenn Hoffman, Leavenworth District Ranger

Alex- How about heather? Some of those alp slopes can be class four, for sure.

So far, I agree with Crackbolter that this has been a good discussion. Although perhaps there have been few new points made here, we have been able to make those same old tire arguments without falling into the name-calling and rhetoric that is usually associated with this topic and it seems that we have had general agreement on most points (certainly far from all) about what is and isn't appropriate bolting so that a discussion of how or whether to undertake "restoration" efforts can proceed with that as a basis. If that is to be the discussion, I would like to note that I was misquoted as saying "let it be;" I have been urging restraint and civility but I have not advocated passivity. I'm sorry to disappoint you, Gaper, but I saw no need to respond when you and I had both made our points and it appeared to me that further response was only going to be more restatement of the same ideas. I had already stated that I agreed with most of what you were suggesting about bolters, bolting, and many related issues, but I simply disagree on certain tactical questions.

Gu - Generally, on the kind of terrain that you are talking about, I have had no rope drag problem created by weaving back and forth around natural features. Travelling on a half length of the rope would be one way to facilitate communication between the parties, and if the drag should become a problem, the leader may have to stop and belay for a bit.

But really -- a BONG? What will it be next, is he going to put ice in the thing? Where does it end? Shame.

You're not a sport smoker, are you? Think about it, do you really need to rely on that crutch? Why can't you just smoke that stuff the old way?

Sorry, Gaper, but I disagree. The past results of removing offensive bolts have been inconclusive. Think about the bolting/removal/reboltling/flattening/straightening of Whipsaw at Vantage – I think this took place over ten years ago. Did this send a "clear message" that bolting at the Coulee would not be tolerated? Did it do anything to stem the tide over there? I think not. I'm not saying I'm against the removal of those bolts on Ingalls Peak – I just hope that such an action would be undertaken in a thoughtful manner and the rationale behind such action communicated in a manner that may actually convince somebody of something other than that the guy (or gal) who removes the bolts is willing to be confrontational. Just to be clear: I don't condone the addition of belay/rappel bolts where they would appear to be absolutely unnecessary. I deliberately use the phrase "appear to be" because I can't imagine why they should be there, but then again I haven't gone up there to inspect and I haven't had the opportunity to discuss the reason for those bolts with the person who installed them.

quote: Originally posted by Gaper_#1: Saying just because they are already installed and leave them is just a feeble argument and a silent nod of your head to these people to "keep on bolting", that was acceptable. You know this is true. I don't "know" this is true. If you don't remove them, there is certainly some danger that such inaction could be interpreted as acceptance of the practice, but it could be interpreted as something else - laziness, a desire not to engage in conflict, a desire to engage in discussion before taking further action to alter the rock... There are too many human variables involved and neither you nor I can tell in advance how our actions or inactions will be viewed by others. I understand why you may feel compelled to remove them. If you do, I hope you will try to do it in a non-confrontational and clean manner.

Erik - I don't think it is bullshit to hope that sport climbers or inexperienced climbers may gain a broader perspective from venturing into the alpine realm, and on Ingalls Peak they may see that there is another way to approach rock climbing. And Gaper, I know you didn't say this, but it almost sounded as if you just suggested that climbers coming out of a gym or sport climbing background are beyond salvation. I don't agree. I'm not saying that I would support the modification of existing climbs for this purpose; I'm just thinking that now that they are in, maybe some good could come from leaving those particular bolts on Ingalls Peak in place. I wouldn't have supported the installation of belay/rap bolts just for the sake of making the S. Face an inviting climb for the inexperienced, and I agree that the scenic and relatively pristine nature of that peak are degraded by the placement of a bolt belay next to a crack. Like you, I also believe that climbers should not be "trained" to expect to find belay bolts everywhere they go. If someone takes it upon themself to remove those bolts, I hope they can do a clean job of it and I hope they won't stir up a lot of animosity in the process. Because Ingalls Peak is a frequent destination for organized groups like the mountaineers, the person who contemplates this might also consider sending polite letters to such organizations, suggesting they inform their trip leaders that there will no longer be fixed anchors on the route.

All you who left early really missed out: Lambone made his first appearance at a pub club. He and his friends showed us how to do one-armed pullups on beams above the bar, and we carried on the ethical debate until last call (Dwayner, Hikerwa, Lambone and I).

Jordop, I think you are right about the greater impact of our concert-going friends. But unless you want to see the place set up as a climbers' park, accessible only to those with climbing gear and a permit, paid for by a hefty fee and enforced by cops with guns, you're going to be sharing the campsite with a bunch of rock fans on nights when there is an event at the amphitheater. The "camping" at the venue sucks, and if I was going to a show there, I'd certainly elect to drive down the road to camp at the climbing area. I believe MCA sends out crews to pick up trash once in a while, and it would be nice if they'd pay for some facilities, too, but then we might have even more rock fans camping in "our" climbing area. Meanwhile, if you care about the mess, you'll contribute to keeping the place as clean as possible. I think the primary reason Fish and Wildlife do not "give" us much at Frenchmen's Coulee is that we are, as a user group, not very well organized. I've been to several F&W sites where there were very nice facilities, but they've been places used by fisherman and boaters. Those folks have a long history of recreational use that is supported by the government, and they have paid lobbyists.

I don't think there are very many guys (are there any?) who would justify installing a line of bolts simply by noting that there was a crackless expanse of rock awaiting climbers' attention. Obviously, there have to be other compelling reasons why that particular climb will contribute something to the overall mix of climbing experiences available because there can really be no other justification for using public resources that way. However, even if you conclude that the proposed line will be the most unique and coolest climb that there ever was, you also have to weigh the value of your new creation against the permanent destruction of that piece of stone, the aesthetic impact of your new hardware, the political and social ramifications of establishing that climb at that location, the historical contribution, and a host of other factors. I think the debates here largely reflect the fact that we all have different values and the cost benefit analysis won't come out the same for any two people. Sometimes, however, the debate can become mired in some kind of ego battle. I don't think "I can climb it without the bolts so you should too" really cuts it any more than "I know how to install a good sport route and I'm going to put up my climbs despite what everybody thinks." Sure, one argument promotes less impact and the other more, but both arguments avoid the real issues: what is the value of the bolts in question and what are the impacts. I agree with Pope that routes like New Toy should be maintained. It would have been selflish for someone to have bolted all of City of Rocks in that fashion and then to publish a guidebook that was essentially a testimonial to their boldness, but that is not what happened. Maybe Lowe was making a statement or maybe he was just having a good day, but it sounds to me as if he left something that, if maintained, invites climbers to test their selves. As to those bolts on Ingalls, I too can/have climbed that route without clipping any gear(we're talking about the S. Face, right?) but I don't think a pair of belay/rappel bolts is so offensive that they should be removed. That climb is a great introductory peak climb, and while it would in my view be better without "convenience" bolts, their existence may in fact lead to the enlightenment of some sport climbers or novice climbers who feel safe trying the climb because it has fixed anchors and then notice that all the uncluttered rock nearby is very beautiful and has a value entirely missing from Exit 38.

Assuming you are going for the north side of the mountain, the road to the trailhead for Snow Gulch or the Lone Tree Pass was starting to erode pretty badly at the end of last season. However, the rough section was probably no more than a half mile from the end of the road, so even if it is impassable, road conditions should not be much of an impediment unless there is a gate and a no parking sign.

I support anybody who wants to protest the Fee Demo program. Throw out your tickets, go argue your case in court, and write your congressman. However, just try to remember that we do not need to fight a war with every individual district office or ranger. Our battle is with the industry groups and politicians who want to do things that we don't approve of, not with the poor schmuck who gets stuck cruising the parking lot (officer unfriendly over in Leavenworth excepted -- it seems he may in fact have a personal issue with climbers). In the Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest, I've talked with line staff who think the fee demo program is bullshit, and we don't need to antagonize these people by being rude to them. Being the naive sap that I am, I'll disagree with Erik on the WTA issue. Although you may have complaints about what that organization does or doesn't do, and you may believe that trail maintenance should not have to be done by volunteers, the WTA projects over the last two years have markedly improved the trail to Three O'Clock Rock in Darrington over the last two years and I believe that, in a broader sense, climber participation in that effort, and the support and involvement of the Access Fund and the North Face on the issue of climber access in general, have gained the attention of the Darrington Ranger District so that they are now talking with us about how to preserve and maintain some roads that, a few years ago, they were going to gate. Yes Erik, the WTA program may in part serve as a diversion that occupies "do-gooders" who would otherwise be organizing against Fee Demo, but the trails do need work and I think anybody who wants to protest Fee Demo will only gain credibility and good will with the Forest Service and with other recreational users if they are willing to pitch in and help.

My friend "the safety man" went to Darrington yesterday, and he said they encountered "miles of snow wallowing." Being the fanatic he is, and having an inexperienced partner who didn't know any better, they perservered through the snow and the drizzle and when they go to Three O'Clock Rock, they found many of the routes to be dry.

74th Street Alehouse has good food, but I am afraid it may be too small to accomodate us. There was significant complaint that Hattie's Hat was too small, but 74th is much smaller than Hatties and it only has very small tables. Last time were were there, when the group was about a quarter or third as large, we had some difficulty with space.

Thanks Chris. Anybody who doesn't want to find a crowd at Bruce's boulder, Barny's rubble, Lower clamshell, Alphabet rock, Roto wall and Mountaineers Dome can start studying the guidebook to pick other places they'd want to climb. It seems to me those particular crags are perfect places for instructional climbing and, unlike at least one post above, I'd rather see a large group on a roadside or nearly roadside crag than have them hike up the hillside to something that is more remote, where they'd do more damage (the hillsides in Icicle Creek include a lot of sandy, loose slopes where the "trails" are falling away as climbers walk on them, and more people walking more distance will generally lead to more damage). As to whether there should be groups of this size, I would say that 90 is excessive but I'd rather see 90 climbers in an organized party (where there may be some hope that they will be directed to clean up after themselves and behave) than I would 90 independent climbers who will stomp the bushes trying to find a "private" climb, play their car stereo at a loud volume as they pack up, and maybe bring a dozen dogs. I think the comparison to CascadeClimbers rope-up (last summer) is a valid one – there were a lot or us and I think we probably had GREATER impact than a mountaineers instructional group -- on the crags and on our neighbors at the campground. (We may have had more fun, too.) I didn't learn to climb through an organized group like the Mountaineers, WAC, or a college outing club, but I have no beef with anyone who wants to do so, and my encounters with such groups in and around Washington state have generally been positive.

I'm just sitting at my desk and speculating, but I would think that, with ONLY a foot of new snow over a week and lots of wind, the south-facing slopes up to Muir should be reasopnablky firm.

In my opinion, the approach is easier when there is no snow below timberline (there will be lots of mud on the flat portions of the hike, but you can probably move faster through this than skiing through tree-wells and over deadfalls). I've been up there at this time of year on a lower snow year when you could walk to Kennedy, there was snow to the point where the route starts up the steep climb toward Boulder Basin, and it was dry most of the way up that climb toward the basin. If it is snowy, you may have difficulty following the trail for the first few miles after the hot springs, but the route here veers away from the creek and back again so it may be easier to follow the edge of the bluff above Kennedy Creek. The Sitkum is an enjoyable ski run, but watch for a couple of crevasses or creep cracks, just before topping out over the first rise above the basin, and again going around and passing that rise, where the summit pyramid comes into view.

That was where it all started. The very first pubclub.

Not being particularly charmed by the Alki, and happening to live within stumbling distance of Hattie's Hat, I just voted for Ballard. However, a certain friend of Rays, an older gentlemen, has been e-mailing me to say he wants to know where it will be tomorrow night and he said he enjoyed the Park. Anyway, let's make a call for tomorrow night and maybe we should send out scouts for next week's location -- ChucK??

Alpine K, I would agree with your prioritizing a reduction in our oil consumption over undertaking extensive efforts to slow the destruction of cliff habitat. However, I think that we rock climbers have a special responsibility to pay attention to the impact we cause in the vertical world because we are directly responsible for a large part of the disruption of the cliffside ecology at the sites that we utilize (climate change, acid rain, logging, mining, and other factors are wreaking havoc in many of these areas as well). If there are a limited number of crags along the Niagra Escarpment that attrack climbers' attention because these are the steepest and least vegetated cliffs, and if these same cliffs are those that are most valuable as an ecological reserve, we have an unfortunate situation where climbers may well find theirselves on the wrong end of an environmental debate. In that case I, for one, would not be opposed to a management policy that encourages or even perhaps requires climbing to be restricted to certain areas. I believe the question would be "how much restriction is warranted?" Matt

I agree with Stagger about the "season" for Baker -- year 'round sking can be had there. As to skiing unroped, you will have to decide for yourself. There have been several discussions about the safety of travelling unroped on a glacier on this board and the only real conclusion that can be drawn is that people fall into crevasses some times. In June, you are likely to see some sagging bridges over some of the larger crevasses but you should realize that a tiny crevasses is enough to break your leg while skiing (as a friend of mine learned on Mount Ruth, one spring day many years ago). Many back-country skiers are be comfortable taking that chance, but don't completely dismiss the danger. Have fun and pay attention.

Those couloirs, (more likek chimneys at the top if they are the ones I am thinking of), face slightly east and get morning sun. They might be OK in may sometimes... By the way: here's N. Face of Rex's Piller.

I haven't done the enchainment, but I've been up there skiing quite a bit. I've climbed and skied Slalok (Rex's Piller) as a day trip twice, and it took maybe eight or ten hours. I've climbed and skied Matier from the hut a couple of times (it's an easy half day trip from there and the hut itself is not more than two hours from the car if you have a light pack). So I would guess that you could do all three in a day, but if you are like me and you like camping I'd get a head start on the trip and go up to Joffre Lakes (the upper lake) the night before and do the trip from there. But the lake is only two or three hours from the car (probably forty five minutes for some of the guys who lurk but rarely post on this site) and lots of guys would not think that worth it. The upper portion of the Joffre Glacier (above the icefall) is flat, and you could find a nice place to dig a hole and bed down if you wanted to watch the sunset from somewhere up high.