mattp

Good point, Mitch. I guess it is just a psychological thing -- they don't want to die thinking they could have done something more.

What's this, Hikerwa, you don't want to go the the Alki?

I didn't mean to suggest that removing and reinstalling a nut would "reduce the setup" by 1/2. I have been told that it reduces the nut strength by 1/2, but in most situations the nut itself is not the most critical part of the system. In a vertical or less than vertical location, any loading will mostly come as a shear pull on the bolt itself, with a relatively small load being placed on the nut. Still, if there is any truth to what I've been told, it is easy to replace a nut (they're cheap). There could be some conflicting metal issues, though, and I'm not entirely sure about this. Anybody know? I suggested removing a bolt if you are going to add a new one because I find belay stations with a whole nest of bolts unsightly -- it is not uncommon to find four or five bolts at a belay on a popular climb, and the extra bolts tend to sprout rappel slings, even if there are new chains on two bomber bolts, because someone backs them up to the nearby old bolts "just in case." In my view, one of the primary reasons for re-doing a belay station is to reduce the visibility of these stations from the ground and it is the heaps of webbing that are so easy to spot – not the bolts themselves. As far as re-using holes, I would not recommend pulling out a bolt and putting another of equal dimension back into the same hole unless it was a petzl 5 piece or similar bolt that can be unscrewed and pulled out without damaging the hole. To reuse a hole, you should generally re-drill the hole in the next larger size and install a larger bolt (remember, some bolts will leave a wedge or sleeve behind, and this will frustrate your efforts to redrill the hole). Alternatively, try to leave the cleanest hole possible and maybe even patch it -- then drill a new hole several inches away. Puget is right -- if you start messing around with a belay station, be prepared to replace the whole thing after you break a bolt or drop something or ... [ 01-31-2002: Message edited by: mattp ]

Back to the original question -- I would suggest that you first ask yourself if the anchors are truly inadequate. If you do decided to upgrade them, try to leave the station better than you found it and to me this means leaving behind station that is strong and neat – preferably equipped with "name brand" chains or rappel anchors made by Metolious or Petzl or Fixe or some other climbing equipment manufacturer so that somebody who doesn't like the looks of hardware store chain or bleached webbing won't feel compelled to add to a growing heap of trash. I like the hangers with a ring or two rings on them, made by Fixe, which leave plenty of room for a rappel rope and a ‘biner. Unfortunately, however, some climbers finding these anchors side-by-side seem to think they have to "equalize" the anchors and pretty quickly you have the cabbage patch that Erik complains of. Be aware that simply removing and replacing a nut may weaken the original bolt if the existing nut is fixed by corrosion or lock-tite or if you crank the nut back on too tightly. Also, I am told that a nut installed a second time loses half its strength so you should at least replace the nuts if you remove one. If you have any trouble removing or reinstalling a nut and hanger, you should probably think about how to cleanly remove one of the old anchor bolts and adding a new one. Are there any other ideas out there? [ 01-31-2002: Message edited by: mattp ]

Norm - that's pretty much my point. It is possible they did something stupid (haven't we all, at some point), but based on what I know from the newscast and the paper it is equally possible that they took what most of us would believe to be the right precautions, relied on their own judgment and were wrong. We can still take some lessons from their tragedy, however, and I believe one of them is exactly what you hinted at: look at the conditions on the slope in front of you rather than depending on an overall hazard rating for the range.

Fern, you may be right but do you have any factual infomration as to whether or not they took any precaution in that regard? The Seattle PI article reported something to the effect that it was a massive slide, taking out trees as if they were toothpicks, so it is possible the lower skiers were in an area that appeared safe. I can imagine other scenarios where what most of us would accept as a safe practice is not sufficient to prevent a disaster like this one. Obviously they were wrong about something, and yours is a good point, but to say 3 of 5 killed means they obviously weren't applying the basic tenet seems to me a bit of an assumption.

It is possible that Buckner was too easy for the hard guys who climbed so many of the larger north faces in the winter during the 1980's but it has proven out of reach for the more casual winter climbers. Climb it an publish a trip report of your first winter ascent and see what kind of a response you get.

Now can we hear from the original Dwayner? How does it feel to be this week's Alpine Buddy? Any advice for the rest of us? Anything you'd like to say to the folks back home?

Duane Constantnino was not a Washington Rock author, though he was good buddies with David Whitelaw, who was one of the authors (Don Brooks was the other). Duane was a genuine hardcore badass, and put up some routes that have had few (at least one of them probably not even one) repeats.

I don't know the specific devices discussed here, but my general experience is that the easier to clip and unclip a racking device is, the easier it is to have them unclip accidently. Is this what you guys are finding to be true? By the way, I was just in Pro Mountain Sports and he has some very slick looking tubes for sheathing your screws and the leashless tools look pretty cool as well.

The news anchor indicated that it was irresponsible for experienced skiers to be out skiing when the avalanche hazard was rated "considerable." Yes, Freshies can kill, but isn't the hazard rated "considerable" just about any time there is enough new show for powder skiing? Is it wrong to go out and enjoy that new snow? I've had some good runs in deep powder on big open slopes when the hazard was "considerable" or even "high" and backed off some of those same slopes shen it was rated only "moderate."

Dwayner is everybody's buddy. You want dating advice? You got it. A hot tub experince? Call Dwayner. A history lesson? Professor Dwayner can fill you in. Moral and ethical counselling? He's right there for this, too. If you want to share his Mickeys, though, you have to find him before 9:00 a.m.

It faces NW.

That picture was taken from the Nisqually River bridge.

The summit of Mount Daniel is almost 8,000' and you'll have to descend to at least as low as Deception Pass, at about 4,500' before taking the fisherman's trail up to Tuck and Robin (Robin is at 6,200') . Were you to descend NE from Daniel you would find no trail but I don't think it is more than a thousand feet of avalanche brush and you'd be crawling down-hill to pick up a trail that will dip a little below Deception Pass but head fairly directly there (I met somebody who said it was a "good" route and was taking his girlfriend up that way last summer but before they got more than a half mile out of the parking lot he was already carrying most of her load -- I wonder how it worked out). The trail back up to Tuck and Robin is a little rough but its all there.

Here's the flows on the escarpment above the Nisqually River (another poor image, I'm afraid).

Until Mr. Parker comes up with a better image, here it is (sorry for the poor quality): [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: mattp ]

I have skied a broad chute just down from the summit, on the north face of the east ridge and it was a pretty good ski run though short and steep. I have also skied the SE face, longer and a little more moderate, though on an early-season trip I seem to remember some issue with a bunch of little trees in the way of what would otherwise have been more enjoyable. A friend of mine skied this run more recently, in the Spring, and he came back with a more favorable impression so it may be worth a visit. Access may be better in the spring, because the roads approaching these runs run up to moderately high elevation, 3,000 - 3,500' and are likely snowed in right now. The road approaching from Bon Jon Pass to the NE side of the mountain ends in a logged area where the shortest approach is off-trail and the re-growth is borderline unfriendly. The road to the SE side comes in from Townsend Creek and leads to a trailhead (what I remember to be the higher non-officeal trailhead could almost be reached in a pickup truck as recently as perhaps ten years ago, I don't know about present status).

I know they allow smoking in the main bar area, near the front door, but I'm not sure about the back room where we sit. Anyway, I don't like a smokey bar and I don't remember it being an issue. Back in the days of yore, when it was packed with old alcholics and fisherman, it used to be VERY smokey. Kids these days just don't seem to know that you're supposed to chain-smoke when you're drinking.

I sort of agree with you except that it I believe that it is slightly the other way around: the irregular nature of granite cracks is precisely what makes them hex-frieindly whereas the smooth and parallel nature of the basalt at a place like Vantage causes difficulty for hexes. Interestingly, I find that the Andesite at Tieton is often quite hex-friendly and indeed, the cracks there are often irregular inside and narrower at the rock surface than the inside of the crack, so hexes work very well and do not walk like a cam.

quote: Originally posted by specialed: TV's pretty good and safe. I'm gunna give up climbing and drink Mickey's with Dwayner. Have you ever heard of electromagnetic radiation? Liver damage? That Duaner is one gnarly dude, taking his chances with the grim reaper that way! You're going to die a young death, my friend.

I disagree with just about everyone in this discussion: in my view, not only has ice climbing not become any safer at all with modern equipment but has in fact become MORE dangerous. The ease with which one can climb a waterfall using bent shaft tools and vertical point crampons makes the activity seemingly less serious and you have people with little or no mountain sense spending time in an environment that has all of the hazards mentioned above. Similarly, the development of easier-to-place ice screws and the prospect of a "free" rappel from an Abolokav (sp) thread, lures intermediate climbers to climbs that only the experts would have tried twenty years ago.

Are you referring to the climbs near what I believe was the girl scout camp? The left-hand of the two has a waterfall in a corner system, and the right-hand is a smoother wall, directly facing the river. They are two long or three short pitches high. I haven't seen them come in for a few years, though I don't drive up that road much in the winter. In years past, they used to form at least once a year and in the early 80's there was a front page newspaper story about a body recovery there, with a huge picture and a rescue leader saying that the falling ice was more dangerous than any of the fire he'd taken in 'Nam. In about 1983, I climbed the right-hand one, with a climber named Steve Mascioli who died on Mt. Hunter a few years back (anybody know him?). It was probably about WI 3+, a little thin at the top where a hanging cedar branch drooped just low enough so we didn't need to do any dry-tooling. And yes, the river crossing was a ford. It was a cold day and I didn't recover feeling in my toes until a pitch up the climb.

It's been said many times that we are never going to have consensus, but Roger, Matt, Latch, Clyde, and ChucK have agreed with my thesis that bolt dependent slab climbs are OK, if they are "reasonably" and "properly" bolted, and I think it sounds as if their ideas of what that may mean may be fairly similar (Matt is the only one that set forth his idea of what might be proper spacing in any real detail and I am sure that we could quibble over the dimensions but the general concept seems to be that the average climb should have protection somewhere near moves that are within a number grade or two of the crux rating, and easier terrain need not be protected as thoroughly). It doesn't sound to me as if Peter would disagree to any serious degree and Pope, too, indicated that he might find a route equipped in this manner not to be over bolted -- as long as the bolts aren't placed next to cracks (on this point -- bolted cracks -- it seems we all assume there is general agreement). JRCO says extreme runouts are no good though he doesn't say what is good, Erik says thumbs up, Alpine K seems to be more or less on board. So everybody who has commented on this particular point has reached consensus! Bullshit, you say? Have I put words in your mouths? Yes I have. But my point is that I think there really are some areas were we generally agree. Does this mean OK EVERYBODY, AS LONG AS YOU PLAY WITHIN THESE PARAMETERS IT'S ALL COOL, SO GO FOR IT? Of course not. All of us know that quite apart from what might be OK when talking about a particular pitch, there are issues of over crowing, overuse, overbolting, and just plain overdoing it. And I think all of us agree that our crags are a limited resource that isn't to be all drilled out like the plains of eastern Wyoming. In addition to safety considerations, there are aesthetic concerns, environmental concerns, political concerns, and yes, stylistic concerns. These issues will not be resolved so easily.

Pope, I think you overstate your case. In suggesting that anybody who likes to climb or put up bolted routes suffers from an insatiable ego and has utter disdain for "the community;" by stating that they lack traits like courage, skill and honesty; and in ranting and raving the way you do, you make yourself sound like a trad-climbing bigot who probably has an insatiable ego, has utter disdain for the community and may be dishonest. Please don't misunderstand me, I believe that you honestly do have concern for the vertical environment and for the sport but I am afraid that your message is lost in your tone. Its not that I disagree with what I think is your basic premise, either. My hat is off to you, to Mitch, to Bill Robbins (yes, Bill), and to anyone else who speaks out about the proliferation of bolts and the sport climbing ethic. However, I believe that your contribution might be more valuable if you could find a way to participate in discussions on this board, or meetings or letter writing or other organization off this board, or if you could participate in some active crag maintenance outdoors, in a manner that might promote communication and cooperation rather than fostering ill will and a tendency for many climbers to disregard what you have to say. I apologize if this sounds like I want another DDD part IV or Negativity argument, but I received a private message urging me to reply here and I figured I'd come out once again in favor of peace and love.