mattp

Bug - On most "normal" rock climbs, I believe it probably is just another thing to carry. You will almost never use it on routes where there are fixed belay stations (of course), but even on most popular trad climbs that do not have pre-set anchors I find adequate placements close enough together that I rarely need the cordelette. And the climbing rope can generally be used for the occasional long leash to a more distant anchor. However, when doing something more off-the-track, I find I use it more, and I'm happy to have that 20 feet of extra cordage that I might cut up and leave behind at rappels if necessary.

Morris - There is still time.

In another thread, Allison questions whether there should be "rules" about how to organize a pub club and Mystic Nacho notes that the issue of where to meet this week may have grown beyond reasonable proportion. In light of this week's debate, I believe it might be appropriate to ask why we go to pub club and why it is that anybody might think that an "organized" event is any better than just going out with the friends you may already go out with outside of cc.com. First and foremost, I see the weekly pub club as an opportunity to meet and hang out with some of the people who I interact with so much over the internet. I'm always excited to meet new pub clubbers, and to discuss the latest spray fest on the board. I think these face-to-face interactions have led to some moderation of the bullshit flung between those of us who like to waste half our work day arguing about sport v. trad climbing or the proper way to catch a leader fall. I believe that the exchange of ideas and information at cc.com and at pub clubs helps build a sense of community and I hope the exchange may help us to take a more unified position as a user group. I know that some people fear the acrimonious debate commonly found on the site may in fact do just the opposite, and I recognize that there have been some ups and some downs, but I think the general net effect is on the up side. I also like to drink beer and I enjoy talking about climbing, but the special attraction that the pub clubs hold for me is the opportunity to meet climbers who I would not otherwise have the opportunity to meet. I'm willing to drive: I live in Ballard but I've been to Monroe, Issaquah, and Tacoma. Would I otherwise have met the dynamic duo of Dwayner and Pope? No. Bronco and Mountain Ranger? I doubt it. Even right here in the north end of Seattle, I doubt I would have met Allison and IceGirl without at least a semi-organized event. Let's all drink to Pub club.

Allison-You live close to my house so I'd drive you, but you'd have to be ready to go at a civilized hour - like 7:00 pm - and ready to stay out till another civilized hour - like at least 11:00 pm. We'll miss you tomorrow night, but we'll get over it. -Matt [ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: mattp ]

Icegirl, I sympathize with you. Alki is a long way off and Tacoma might as well be in Mexico. But really, I believe there has been a request for an eastside event for some time now. What would be the harm in waiting one more week? You went to Issaquah when the "official" pub club was in Tacoma (not that Alpine K is the president of pub club, but I do support him in trying to avoid confusion and last minute changes in the venue -- the split clubs are a drag). Now, of course, perhaps the eastsiders would agree that THEY can wait another week for their (overdue) turn.

Alpine K - thanks for taking the leadership on this, but I'd think it appropriate to ask how many, or who, are actually desirous of an East side night this week if we are going to adhere to a "schedule" set by the fact that an East side pub club was requested last week. I was chatting with Ray about the possibility that it would be East side week, but he was skeptical about whether or not he'd be able to make it. If somebody else over there feels it is "their turn," lets do it ('cause it is). But if not, I would think it better to have an East side pub club when there is more interest. All you East siders -- any comment?

And I should add that I believe limiting WHERE people camp is more important that limiting HOW MANY camp there. I believe that within one or two limited perimeter areas, Boston Basin or the Enchantment Lakes could sustain more campers with less damage than the present system allows.

As I see it, the braided trails and scattered campsites that blight popular alpine and sub-alpine areas occur because everybody wants to camp "on their own," preferably out of site of other parties so that they can enjoy a tent-free view of the wilderness around them. In wooded areas, such as around lake shores at intermediate elevations, the campsite scars aren't quite so ugly and there is more hope that if the usage were suddenly to decline, the scars might heal. But at or above treeline, I believe that many heavy-use areas should have pit toilets installed and a very small perimeter within which all campers have to set their camp. I believe there are relatively few areas where this is a real problem and the solution I propose would be appropriate. Tuck and Robin Lakes, the Enchantments, Boston Basin, Upper Watson Lakes ... and some people may not want these to become "walk-in campgrounds" that feel like Camp Four, but it would contain the damage and the fact is that these truly ARE walk in campgrounds already, it is just that we want to maintain the illusion that we are in the wilderness when there are other parties camped behind every tree and rock nearby, just out of site. For those who don't like the crowd, there are a lot of alternatives.

McHale Packs, made in Ballard, aren't cheap but they are great packs. They used to be known as the heaviest packs around, though also the toughest, and I nderstand he now makes lighter ones as well. Talk about independent - Dan McHale pretty much shuns all advertising and does it his own way and he can be crankier than Dave Page sometimes. McHale packs are not cheap, however. C&S Engineering, in Marysville, carries a variety of hardware including pitons, Kong carabiners, and weird belay devices you won't see anywhere else. They make portaledges, gaitors, tents, etriers, harnesses ... It is a "specialty shop" that is not friendly to casual shoppers but they do have some good stuff. And the proprietor is probably even more "independent" than Dan HcHale, if that's possible (www.cands.net). They have some good deals. [ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: mattp ]

I use nearly the same system as Alpine K, but I use only one 5 tug symbol. 5 tugs means "climb." Whether the leader has establshed a belay, or they have not reached one yet but see a good ledge fifty feet higher, the second does not know. But five tugs cannot be confused with "I'm trying to clear a rope snag."

I'd give you very high odds of being right about that, though it should be noted that the last time they did the so-called salvage logging operation in the Icicle, they used a giant helicopter to fly the logs out and if they did this again, they'd have no need to take loaded log trucks over those bridges. I say "so called" because I belive that prior operation was a timber sale, not a salvage effort. They harvested trees for their size, regardless of whether they had fire damage or not.

The bowline on a coil works well, in a pinch -- like when some bonehead forgets their harness. I also use the regular bowline sometimes and I have never heard of it failing when used in a situation where it is not subjected to a lot of flopping around. I sometimes use it, tied off with half a grapevine, when I'm using a piece of rope as a long runner for a top-rope anchor or when I am fixing a line. As smoker noted - consider the pros and cons, and use it where you place a high priority on being able to untie the knot after it has been loaded. If you want a fail-proof knot, especially where the rope will flop around (as in a tie-in knot), use the follow-through figure eight. I believe the clove hitch has similar limitations. It is easy to tie, can be tied with one hand, and the length can be adjusted without completely undoing the knot. But when it is used at a belay while there is a lot of activity, such as when you are hauling or when there are three climbers on the team, I have often seen it to deform so as to end up looking like something less than a knot. I generally prefer the water knot tied on a bight of rope.

It is only six or eight miles from Dutchman Flat to Green Lakes, and there is not a whole lot of elevation gain, so if you are reasonably energetic, and if the snow surface is even moderately friendly, I believe you could do the trip in less than three days. But Walter is right: it is a fairly long way. Climbing from Green Lakes, the easiest route is to stay well below (south of) the East Ridge, climbing the Lewis Glacier to the South Ridge. The south facing slope from Hodge Crest to the Lewis is a great run, and from the Lewis one can traverse around to the east and reach more entertaining (E facing) slopes that end up just north of Green Lakes. In sunny weather, you'll want to complete the run relatively early in the day, before the sun leaves those east facing slopes and they begin to crust over.

quote: Originally posted by Bug: The one thing I have noticed that the Forest service ALWAYS does well is get factions fighting amoungst themselves. Bug, you give them too much power. They don't cause us to fight amonst ourselves, we are quite capable of doing that on our own. quote: Originally posted by Bug: You guys are shitting all over each other while the Forest Service is preparing to close down the one thing we all love. A sad truth, I'm afraid, that applies to many of the issues we face in Leavenworth, at Vantage, or in the North Cascades National Park. You can't blame the government for this situation, however. After all, would you expect the rangers to try to organize climbers so that the climbers can have more power to tell them how to do their jobs? We will have more power as a user group when we are able to communicate and compromise enough to have a more cohesive presence in land management or law enforcement discussions.

I agree, Fairweather. Access issues are complex and a broad discussion will benefit all of us, but when we start calling each other cocksuckers and mental midgets, and when we think we have to assert our case to the nth degree in order to make a point, the discussion degenerates and some past argument about bolts takes over a discussion of the impending closure of the Eightmile road (I don't believe Puget's suggestion that Retro had a selfish motivation behind his initial post was quite in the same category of name calling because, although he did perhaps start the mud flinging, the statement that Retro sounded selfish when he suggested that he might support reduced access because it wouldn't negatively impact him was oriented toward a discussion of the issue rather than just a personal attack. So lets get back to the topic. I agree with Retro that closing the road would probably lead to less impact in the Mountaineer Creek drainage, and it might also ease the permit situation somewhat. However, I generally believe that the existing roads ought to be kept open, and I personally don't think it is all that bad to have overuse at, say, Colchuck Lake or Eightmile Lake, because I feel the enjoyment that so many people derive in camping there is worth the cost. However, each situation is different, and I somehow feel differently about the Enchantment Basin -- I would actually support a ban on all camping above Lake Viviane because to me all the "social trails" and campsite scars up there are rather disturbing. Back to the original topic of this thread, I do not find it surprising or improper that the Leavenworth Ranger district would close the road during construction of a bridge. They don't want to deal with people coming by when they may be operating heavy machinery or using explosives or whatever else they are going to do, and the cost as well as the environmental impact of building some detour route or managing traffic through the project probably wouldn't be (in my view) justifiable. However, I do believe that public access (and particularly climber access) is much further down their list of priorities than I think it should be. When they replaced the bridge on the Mountaineer Creek trail several years ago, they removed the old bridge in the early Fall, and did not replace it until mid-summer the following year. This meant there were nine or ten months with no bridge, and being the conspiracy theorist that I am, I believe that at least a part of their reason for this was that if they made it just a little bit harder for us to get up there and have fun, they might have fewer rescues, less police work, and etc. Now, of course, it is equally possible that they wanted to spread the cost of the project over two budget years, but I take the more cynical view because I have had so many experiences where the rangers in that particular district were openly hostile to my recreational goals. So lets hope they don't close the road for six months, or a year, for a project that could be completed in three weeks (I have no idea if that would be feasible, I'm just saying I hope that they make reopening the road a priority.) [ 03-09-2002: Message edited by: mattp ]

Nice trip report and good pics. Keep it up.

Drinks are on Dwayner.

Dwayner, bring your credit card. You da man.

Gary, I agree with you, I find it tedious at times even though I myself will sometimes indulge in a bit of mountaineer bashing. Large groups of beginners (or even one or two gumbies) are always going to attract ridicule in just about any arena or activity, and the Mountaineers make an institution out of it so they are going to draw even more ridicule than might the unaffiliated gumby. Some of the criticism may at times be deserved, but the real issue is that it is just too tempting, kind of like shooting fish in a barrel AND being able to feel smug about it. Unfortunately, perhaps, you are just going to have to get used to it. Matt

I think Crack of Doom is hard. That is one of those L'worth climbs that I believe has a "stiff" rating. Maybe I'm just old and weak.

Just which point did I miss? I think the point here is that Leavenworth ratings used to be, and to some extent still are, stiff compared to many other areas. And no, I don't think Canary is 5.9. But that second pitch must be 5.7d, eh Roger?

i believe Damnation Crack used to be rated 5.8. So did Outer Space (5.8+).

Did you come home with any ticks? That slope above the highway has in the past seen a spring invasion.

North Face of NW Ridge (Adams) for one. But don't get me wrong - I say that with complete respect and full recognition of the fact that they may well have been more than able to handle it. So perhaps "total insanity" is the wrong phrase because I didn't necessariliy intend to imply wrecklessness or irresponsibility. I might use the same phrase to describe your favorite big wall route on the Captain, too, and I'd be saying that with enthusiasm in my voice and a wink in my eye -- these don't come through on the keyboard, I'm afraid.

I believe that "Wickwire photo" may have been inspired by a very similar photo that was widely circulated on a famous poster back in the 1970's. When I saw the poster, my reaction was much like Craig's: I want to do that. Maybe Wickwire had the same reaction?