mattp

Alpine K where are you. I'll be driving by myself, it looks like - unless somebody posts pronto.

Brian, I pretty much disagree with you but I gotta say that I respect your willingness to stick your neck out when you know there will be ten enviro-geeks spraying back.

Eddie, HIkerwa, Beck, Jules - I'm thinking of playing hookey on Wednesday, so a return at a reasonable hour might be good for me. I can drive, or might you?

Right you are, AT. I spent a couple of hours up on Yellow Aster Butte yesterday afternoon, with no other party in sight. The Butte is one of the most popular hikes in the Mount Baker area, and we had expected there to be people all over the place. On the way up, we passed at least eight parties who were headed down. But because we left the car at 4:20, everybody else had gone home. [This message has been edited by mattp (edited 08-13-2001).]

Seeing the sun come up, from a cold bivouac near the summit of South Howser Tower many years ago has to be one of my most memorable experiences. My brother and I had just completed the biggest climb eithier of us had ever done up to that point, and the Bugaboos was the most alpine thing I had ever seen. We had been very cold huddling there, our feet in the rucksack and sitting on the rope, but the excitement of the climb and the beauty of that dawn were so great that we didn't dislike the experience, even in the moment.

lambone - Last spring there was a discussion of this topic wherein a link to an article about some recent General Accounting Office analysis was provided. Forrest said that the Forest Service's own public documents belie some of the arguments they make. These things are published and circulated in such copious quanitites and are often poorly referenced, but if you don't believe Forrest or some wacko who has a website that sounds like maybe they dissaprove of all forms of government, and if you are interested in this issue, I bet the information is available from government sources. I have indicated that I think it is outrageous to pay what was actually over $70 to hike a poor trail and camp in a crowded and as far as I could tell totally unregulated free-for-all for two nights, but most posts here have indicated that if the fees were to be used for trail maintenance of conservation or something that would actually benefit those who pay them, we'd gladly pay. Why don't you look into it, and let us know what you find out? We'll expect a full report. By the way, I was in the Glacier ranger station (Mt. Baker) yesterday, and I told the ranger that I planned to go hiking without posting a use pass. Her reply was "we are not supposed to comment on that."

Eddie - if it turns out to be a T-Town evening I'd ride there with you. Pope - did you ever hear the organ player who used to play the Batman theme over and over, years back when "Java" and "Jive" were still there? That place was (still is?) cool! But for out-of-towners, it is a little convoluted to get there, isn't it? Admittedly, its far easier than trying to get to Ballard Avenue.

In the North Cascades, the flowers are still spectcular in the alpine areas, though beginning to fade. Next come the huckleberries.

MJN reports seeing a friendly goat at Snow Creek Wall. Its fun to see these guys, but they are mostly after your pee and they can get rather aggressive about it. I'd recommend carrying your ice axe with you if you are going out for a pee in the night, and there are any steep slopes nearby. I'm not kidding!

Last year, I went hiking for two nights in the Alpine Lakes. We had two vehicals, four adults, three kids. The total fee was $70.00! And for this we got a poorly maintained trail and a very crowded camping area. I do not support the restrictions of numbers, but would prefer to see camping restricted to designated spots if there is an area that is in danger of being trampled to death, but that is another thread. I agree that these fees are outrageous and while I am tempted to buy a pass, I am somewhat swayed by this discussion and I may just park someone else's car, without a pass, at a location where I am very likely to get ticketted tomorrow.

I've been to Nepal, twice, and for me coldness was not a major problem at that altitude. On a south facing scree slope I wore trekking boots to 20,000 feet withoug even using gaitors, and on some snowier north facing slopes, I wore plastics and gaitors but trekking boots with just about any insulated overboot would have been plenty warm -- though they wouldn't have been as good with the crampons. Do you know what you intend to climb? Plastic boots may well be worth their weight.

Mitch - I agree with you about which "issues" are more real than others. They are not the only issues, however. Aside from fears about controversy itself, Puget has noted in the Negativity thread that he too has talked about people who refuse to post their information on this site because they do not like the tone of what takes place here. I should note that my original premise was that I do not believe that threats and personal attacks are helpful, and it appears that nobody except perhaps Cavey would disagree. I will continue to assert that those who argue that it doesn't matter what they say here are merely trying to make excuses for their own posturing and jive and that they in fact are refusing to take responsibility for THEIR OWN actions. Mattp

Beck, a service project would be great if we could find some useful service to perform. Perhaps somebody who is more up on current happenings over there might be able to help identify an appropriate project. Or, heaven forbid, maybe even the District Ranger. But you have been promoting a social event and not a work weekend-we'd almost certainly want to keep any promise rather small. A crag clean up might just fit the bill.

And no, I have not yet posted anything on this site under any other "alias."

Caveman and Lambone - I agree that the cliffs and mountainsides in this world are public resources and I do not think that routes should be kept secret. In private, I have argued to many of these mystery people who were the original topic of this thread that they should not fear the publication of their information -- but it is certainly not up to me to "out" somebody who wishes to remain private. And no, Cavey, I do not think you are in person a mean spirited guy. Sometimes on the screen I think you overstep the bounds a bit. I brought you up as an example, like the "crazy guy in white," because you are prominent. -Mattp

I know I brought him up, but let's not turn this into a discussion of the crazy guy who climbs in a white suit. I brought up crack cleaning and mentioned a specific example in an effort to counter your suggestion that it would only be one who has done something that he knows is wrong who would not want to stand up in public. Maybe the "crazy guy" is a poor example or maybe he is a perfect one, but my point is that hesitant publishers may not be doing anything that, in hindsight, will be viewed poorly by most climbers.

If you want a recent public example of traditional routes that have been controversial, look at Vantage. Some people have suggested that those chossy cracks should not be subject to having the loose rock removed. Some of those involved in the local climbers association may argue that it is not the routes, but the route setter, but there are other examples of crack cleaning drawing fire. At Leavenworth, for example, there have been periodic arguments that a crack which in its natural state is filled with dirt and moss should not be subject to route development. My guess is that the great Outer Space route was filled with grass on the first ascent but here I digress. The point is that there are valid arguments in support of and against the abstract statement that cracks which may contain soil and living matter should be left alone, but a debate of this issue could easily degenerate to name-calling and threats, which behavior could have a broader affect beyond simply angering or intimidating the immediate participants. The maintenance of trails serving various climbing areas is another activity that has at times become controversial. It is not only the crazed and irresponsible bolter who feels that public discussion of their activity may be something they would rather avoid.

I have recently talked with other climbers about new-route activity at four major Washington climbing areas, and in conversations pertaining to all of these areas I have been asked to consider NOT sharing information either on my web site or on this one -- and the main reason cited has been a fear for political and emotional battles that might result. I don't think it is a matter of these people having done something they may be ashamed of, as has been suggested on this site from time to time, but I think these people truly believe (as I do) that combative argument (particularly when taken off line and onto the mountainsides) and personal attack are bad for the sport and could ultimately threaten climbing at several areas around the State. Some of these new routes are purely sport, some purely traditional, and some a hybrid. Whether this site might one day be the place to post the information, like an on-line climbing journal, remains to be seen (there was a thread on this topic, back in January)

I don't want to stop the fun and I am not advocating that any sprayer be neutered. I just think that when it gets TOO personally combative, we lose people. Ask yourself, if you were the least bit worried about how you looked in public, and if you were the "perpetrator" at Castle Rock, would you show up here? I have no problem if you think the negativity thread reflects some lame political correctness or if you think that I might be one with a stick up my ass – I figured that when I started that topic, I was asking for an argument. But I assure you, in the last few weeks I have talked with several people who would otherwise have information and ideas that would be of interest to many users on this site but who refuse to post here because the feel it isn't worth it to sign up for the abuse. You might say, "get a life - this is the internet," but this is not going to change the fact that these people don't think they have to put up with that crap. Spray on, dudes! Some of that stuff is FUNNY!

Some of the responses in this thread have indicated that I should not take any insults too seriously and have noted that many of you don't want to see the site restricted to a bland collection of route reports. I absolutely agree with this and I gotta say that I derive a great deal of entertainment from the jokes and the banter, and even some of the inane responses to what were originally posted as serious questions. But for those of you who say "lighten up" or "don't come here if you don't like it," I just gotta say that SOMETIMES I think some of the rhetoric has gone a little too far and I gotta ask: do you think insults, harassment or threats encourage others to participate in your entertainment? Do you want this site to be frequented only by those who don't care if they might be the target of such flame? I know for a fact that some of the personal attacks are discouraging people who might have valuable things to say, or who might otherwise make some clever jokes.

Flagyl is the medicine used in the United States, but if your friend can hop a jet and fly to France (or Peru or ...) he could get Tinaba (I think it is tinidimidizol or something like that). With one dose, the Giardia is gone and I believe there are fewer side affects. And while he's in France or Peru, he could go climbing.

In the last couple of weeks I have talked with several people who know of this site but do not post because they feel that the highly contentious nature of some of the discussion can only do more harm than good. It may be said that much of what appears here should be viewed as entertainment rather than substantive, so maybe we shouldn't take any of it too seriously. However, I must agree with those who are disturbed by the tone of some of the discussion here: insulting, abusive, and violent rhetoric do not belong on this site (or on the crag). I say this because they discourage or even prevent real communication and the exchange of information and, worse, this kind of conduct reflects poorly on the climbing community. There are many hot issues which are valid topics for debate. However, the fundamentals of courtesy and respect are sometimes lost in the heat of the argument. Prior posts have asked the hosts of this site to exercise some oversight and enforce some ground rules. I am not sure whether that should be their job or whether the responsibility lies with all of us. What I do know is this: whether on the web or on the trail, climbers of all kinds need to understand that where our actions and words fail to convey a basic respect others, whether they are our friends or our perceived adversaries or just some jerk, our message is lost and we are simply flaming with no possibility of making a positive contribution to any discussion. I recently encountered a "code of conduct for climbers" which has been promoted in New Zealand. One of the items in that code suggests that as climbers we should not engage in activities which reflect poorly on our sport. Holding a strong opinion and arguing one's point is one thing, but threatening people and calling them names is quite another.

Leave the flukes at home, as they will be of no use. Pickets probably will not be much help either, as you are going to find the snow either too hard to pound them in (firn ice) or too soft to use them in a vertical orientation (horizontal placement as a dead man might work, but an ice axe will also work this way). Some people believe you should always carry pickets whenever travelling on a glacier, but don't take more than two. A couple of ice screws might facilitate a crevasse extraction. The F.C. route is not extremely technical, so you should not require very much hardware. Route finding in the chimneys can be confusing. There will be some steep icy sections on the top of the White Salmon Glacier (I believe "Winnie's Slide" is incorrectly marked on the USGS map), possibly a troublesome crevasse or two getting into "Hell's Highway" (also incorrectly marked), and a few hundred feet of easy rock to the summit. The N. Ridge will require more screws, but here again the flukes will not be useful and pickets minimally so. THere may be difficulty getting to the bottom of the route if you are not prepared to do some ice climbing in and out of a crevasse somewhere. [This message has been edited by mattp (edited 08-08-2001).]

Hatties Hat would be about two blocks south of Peoples, at 5231 Ballard Avenue NW. (Right next door to Peoples is the Sunset, with beer only and live music most nights, and right next door to that is the Smoke Shop which is an old time Ballard-type bar. Neither of these two places have much in the way of food.) So is it Hatties? If so, the back room has tables and food is available.

I replaced a couple of hangers on a route in Darrington on Saturday, went to Patti Smith at the Pier, and went to the airport to pick up my climbing pal, who recently survived a plane crash in the Saint Elias Mountains.