mattp

I live six blocks from the place. We have a spare bedroom.

A weekend in Leavenworth would be great. I need some new salt and peppar shakers, and maybe a pair of lederhosen.

Thanks Caveman. What did I do wrong with my html?

Any of you who have climbed in the Saint Elias or Fairweather Range may remember Kurt, killed in a tragic accident on Mount Kennedy last week.

Climbing4fun - A combination of Middle and North Sister would be much easier, because they can both be climbed from the high saddle between them. This can be reached via the very scenic Collier Glacier approach (from the old McKenzie Pass road to the northwest) or, perhaps slightly shorter, via the Hayden Glacier approach from the Pole Creek trail out of Sisters, to the Northeast. The north ridge of the Middle Sister is moderately steep scree with, until middle season, one or two short bits of steep snow. There is some earlier discussion of the North Sister on this site, and the Smoot volcano guide could be read to suggest that even the standard S. Ridge route is dangerous. However, I have taken beginning climbers up it many times and if you are careful with party management and aware of where others are on the climb, the route is not that bad. The last 250 feet or so involve a steep traverse on exposed scree (snow early to mid-season), followed by a loose gully and a short rock scramble. The easier routes on the South Sister lie on the south and west sides, far away from the Middle Sister, and there would be something like ten miles of hiking between the two. To combine these two from one camp you would have to climb from the Chambers Lakes area. From there, you could climb the north side of the South Sister, which is more difficult then the routes you referred to and also probably not all that enjoyable, wand the south side of the Middle Sister, a big rubble heap. If you opt for the trail hiking,you could combine the standard south route on South Sister with either the Hayden Glacier route on Middle (noted above) or the Renfrew Glacier on the west side of the mountain. The Sisters offer wonderful cross-country travel, generally with gentler terrain and much less brush than the Washington Cascades. If you might be up for cross-country travel and a climb slightly more difficult than the comparison routes you mentioned, you could combine the Prouty Glacier on South Sister (steep for 500 feet and often has a schrund and a short bit of rock climbing) and then head over for the Hayden-Diller on Middle. These would probably be most easily accessed from a trailhead near Snow Creek, to the east. Have fun. -Matt [This message has been edited by mattp (edited 08-02-2001).]

I climbed the "N. Face" route (it might be more properly called the N. Buttress) a few years back, and it was GREAT. At that time, in late July, the schrund at the start of the Beckey route was no problem (we descended that way). If the schrund does turn you back, consider the N. Face as an alternative. I believe it was about 17 pitches, 5.9 in a couple of places, and we could have used some pins though we did fine without them. The rock was "reasonable." If you might be interested in other exploration in that area, let me know.

I'd share a ride with someone from Ballard/Fremont, or elsewhere nearby.

I would think the way to go would be over Cascade Pass and Cache Col. I went that way to the N. Face of Spider a couple of years ago, and we returned via the Spider-Formiddable col. The glacier crossing to get to the N. Ridge of Formiddable looked feasible. It would be a doable but somewhat strenuous two-day trip.

I've always thought Viktor's drawings were quite good. He covers a lot of rock in his book, and there are bound to be some errors because he can't readily field-check everything, but I find his drawing generally clear, mostly pretty accurate, and always attractive. I think Viktor tries to do a good job. [This message has been edited by mattp (edited 07-30-2001).]

Drederek- Thanks for the compliment on my topo. I hope it helps. I'm not sure what you mean by the "low traverse." Safe Sex starts with a fixed pin about twenty feet off the ground, left of the Botany 101 dihedral. The route generally follows that rib left of Botany, and the first two pitches climb directly up past that pin on bolted knobby slab, with pro at intervals that were shockingly timid ten years ago but now seem somewhat run-out for some leaders. The climbing is good, and I would highly recommend this start over the original Dreamer start, which traversed leftward below that first fixed pin, to reach an old bolt next to a lieback flake about 75 feet left of the Botany dihedral. You talk of some beautiful crack leading to a steep slab with hangerless bolts. Would this be the fourth pitch, and has someone removed the hangers on a leftward traverse and climb that reaches the flake system on the left hand variant of this pitch? The bolts on the rib to the right have always been hangerless, though if one has a couple of wired stoppers they accept those as a substitute hanger. On the fifth pitch, the left-hand variant is harder and more convoluted, so I generally recommend the right hand line even though it looks grassy from below (it could use some cleaning). If you climbed some face moves to finger-then-hand cracks on the left variant, the hand crack runs out in a pile of pine needles below the large roof that is actually right next to the belay at the top of the "Blue Crack" on Dreamer. There should have been a bolt to protect the slab traverse rightward to a steep face with sharp quartzite edges on Safe Sex. The Sixth Pitch of Safe Sex is short and slightly loose. I would like to put some more effort into pitches seven and eight. There is an independent line, on the same rib left of Botany that the route starts with, which would be better than rejoining Dreamer at that point. Wanna go? I agree that Safe Sex is slightly better as a rappel route than Dreamer. However, there is supposed to be a better descent, involving a lot of down-climbing that is "not too bad" and four rappels on the rib to the north of The Fast Lane. I certainly wouldn't recommend descending the gully on the back, but this rib might be worth trying. P.S. - I climbed Blueberry Hill yesterday and, with some mist falling, it was doable but on the Cascade Slug scale, an SPF (slime problem factor) 6.

If you are looking for the easiest way up it, the start of the route is inobvious because it does not follow the buttress. One possibility is to start up the SW couloir and, shortly above the large chockstone near the start, traverse out leftward onto the W. Face.

Retro - I'm not sure where I stand on something like Canary and I'd like to hear more viewpoints. The "first ascensionist" theory, as I understand it, holds that we should not alter the character of a route by adding or removing bolts that were used on the first ascent. Because hand drills were used in the era of the routes that are now having their hardware replaced, and the result was that in most instances the routes were climbed with as few bolts as the first ascensionists could mentally handle, this principal as generally applied means that the person replacing old bolts is supposed to place fewer bolts than they might if they were establishing that route today. An example might be the Mary Jane Dihedral, or perhaps DDD itself. These routes would probably have additional bolts on them if they were put up today. But what if the original hardware was simply placed badly, or if a route was by some objective standard OVERbolted. Should one who is putting the effort into replacing old hardware maintain the mistakes of the past, and does it really make a difference if they happen to be or to consult with the first ascensionist? Consider an example: there is a bolt on Shock Treatment at Static Point that was originally placed on lead, after the leader placed a rivet and stood on it. That pro bolt is 3' out of reach from the stance below and it was recently upgraded to stainless steel. Wouldn't it have been better to place the new bolt in that prior rivet hole, where it could have been reached from the holds from which it was originally placed? The person restoring the route adhered to the "first ascensionist" principal but I think the result is unfortunate (a desperate clip in the middle of the crux of the route rather than a comfortable clip just before that crux). But the route has been climbed in its current state (with older bolts) for twenty years. Another example: at Index, there is an old aid bolt at the start of the second pitch of City Park which is now used as a pro bolt. That bolt directs the lead rope to run right where the leader must place their feet, and I believe that an improvement could be made by removing the old 1/4 inch bolt and replacing it with one a foot or two up and to the right, though I am hesitant to do this because I know that such a move would be controversial and because I am not confident that I could restore the rock at the old bolt hole. But I wonder: wouldn't modern climbers be better served by a bolt that offers the same degree of protection but which doesn't interfere with the climbing (this assuming that one could in fact erase the old hole)? This would alter the character of the climb slightly, because it would remove a bit of fumbling with a rope in the way, but do we think that fumbling with the rope is an asset on this climb?. Example number three: what about those bolts on the second pitch of Canary? If there is good pro nearby, couldn't the bolts have simply been removed? Shouldn't they? Example number four: there is an old quarter inch bolt in the dihedral on Midway, 120 feet above the pedestal. This is right next to perfect cracks that were probably too wide for the gear carried by early parties and, as far as I know, it is not shown on any topo. In today's world, that bolt might not have been placed, and probably nobody would object to its removal. Example number five: the start of Slender Thread, at Peshastin. When originally established, the start was "sporty" but probably not dangerous. Then the ground eroded beneath the climb,and there was a leg-breaker root at the start for many years. Ten the tree and root disappeared but were replaced by a flake which would break one's leg. More recently, this flake has been removed so that, I think, the start is back more like how it was originally - runnout and scary but a fall may not mean a guaranteed broken leg. So one might say it is a good thing there has never been a bolt added in the interim. But the start is probably ten feet longer than it was originally, and some would say it is a classic that should be "restored" with the addition of a bolt. Others would be very upset by this. For me, the first ascensionist principal is less useful when employed in the maintenance of modern bolts that were installed with a power drill. Now that it has become so easy to add a bolt anywhere for any reason, "spray bolts" are proliferating all over the place and I don't think we can assume that a bolt placed by the first ascensionist is necessarily something that should be maintained. And it doesn't seem to matter whether a route was put up on lead or rappel -- with the power drill there still end up being some misfires. The first ascensionist principal is useful in that it places some restraint on someone who comes along and thinks they know how to "improve" things, because it discourages their doing so without some discussion and (hopefully) careful consideration. But what if the first ascensionist was a butcher or simply in-artful? Or what if times have changed, as in the case of what I presume was that old belay bolt on Midway? Or what if the original route has been changed through the failure of an old flake or something? How do we decide? As to the addition of belay stations, I have talked to many (mostly younger) climbers who feel that this is different from adding pro bolts - even if those belay stations are right next to clean cracks. I don't need or even desire bolts at every belay but the problem is, climbers who start in a gym and then go "outside" to sport crags have never learned how to set up their own retreat and they would be in substantial danger on a trad route without pre-set rappel stations. One could argue that the inexperienced climbers should stay off our crags, but I don't think that is realistic in today's world. I presume this is why a rappel station was added to Outer Space and I might be willing to accept such an alteration if there were some general concensus that rappel stations might be added on trad crags but sport climbs would not be installed on those same crags. In my view, this could be an appropriate compromise and it might be a principal that could be respected by all climbers. Mattp [This message has been edited by mattp (edited 07-28-2001).]

EV - I don't own a copy of Smoot's guide, but I believe the photo is NOT accurately annotated. If you made it up to a belay station on a large ledge with two fat bolts, a rope length below the obvious largest roof on Botany, you were at that point on Safe Sex and from there it follows Botany for a 1/2 pitch to exit rightward on a steep face(this pitch, while rather unappealing in appearance from below, is in fact a great pitch). If, on the way to that point, you had 3/8" bolts for pro and at belays, you were on Safe Sex the whole way (the original Botany route had no bolts and stayed in the dihedral system the whole way). Dreamer deserves it's reputation so I would suggest it would be worth a repeat visit. I think (hope) my topo would be sufficient to guide you adequately. Suggestions? Mattp

EV - Try the topo on my web page at www.seanet.com/~mattp/Darr Where were you when you determined you were not on route? Many parties will see the anchors for Safe Sex where it diverts from the fourth pitch of Dreamer (the pitch count will vary depending on how you start the climb) and will then inadvertently get on that route by mistake.

Yossarian - If you started over near the big gully that is the old Avoidance Route, and after a few pitches you found some new bolts leading off the top of a flake to a belay station with new bolts and maybe an old one on a ledge about 6" wide, you were on "Take the Runout" and climbed the pitch that rejoins Dreamer (actually, it could be Runout or another climb that intertwines with it whose name I cannot remember right now). Those climbs were established twenty years ago. Dreamer does not go up the bushy dihedral up the center of the face - that is the old Botany 101 route. Safe Sex mostly follows the rib just left of this dihedral (though two pitches largely follow in that dihedral and even right of it), and Dreamer is on the face left of that rib. As indicated in the prior post, route finding can be tricky on Dreamer because the route does wander a bit. Ropegun - Was that you, headed out relatively early (about 6:00 pm?). Did you complete the route?

I must have been too far gone by that time. I remember being asked if I wanted one, and I said yes, but then I never drank it. I trust a shot did not go wasted, however. Cheers.

Mike - The forecast is for wetness this weekend, so Darrington may not be a good destination. I haven't ruled it out yet, however, because you can go there on a foggy day and still have an OK time and in fact, Dreamer faces Southeast and is more comfortable on a cloudy day. Realize, however, that it is a challenging climb that stymies many climbers who climb 5.10. Depending on what happens with my buddy, I'd be glad to climb with you or you would most likely be welcome to come with us.

Newbie - I've heard a lot of stories about RMI and I'm one of those guys who is likely to spout dissaproving remark, but my guess is that, no matter how many reasons there may be for more experienced or more snotty climbers to dissaprove of RMI, they can probably lead a successful climb in September. And as far as conditioning -- seven weeks is not too short a time to try to work out as much as you can so that you are in the best shape possible. Run four days a week (running with a small pack on is even better but be careful or you can hurt yourself), hike up Mt. Si with a pack on every weekend, even ride the stationary bike in front of the TV. You certainly won't regret it. Mt. Rainier is awesome.

Rafael - I've been wondering about the possibility of using a car jack or similar device for some time. Do you have the means to set one up so that it might be hooked to a sawed off wonder bar or something that could be inserted beneath a hanger or a nut? This might be lighter and more portable than a big crowbar. Whether "chopping" something that one deems offensive or simply maintaining a route where the hardware may have been misplaced, mangled, or manky, this could be a useful device. - mattp

009 - I believe you're right that the rangers at Mt. Rainier are getting cooler all the time, and I should say that as far as I can tell, Mr. Gautier is largely responsible for this. Right on Mike! But there still seems to be an institutional bias against climbing. Two years ago, I went to sign out for the Tacoma Glacier and the ranger at Longmire told me that the creek at the end of the road was running at flood level and that I "could not" go. I had been up there to scope out the creek about an hour before, and I had seen that there was a lot of muddy water running over the bank but it was no more than knee deep, so I asked him: "is there some kind of Federal regulation or something?" He hemmed and hawed and didn't answer my question. I tried to pin him down, but he wouldn't tell me if he had heard that the creek was impassible or what exactly was the basis for his proclamation. Prior posts have indicated that you get a lot less of this kind of B.S. in Canada, and that has been my experience. If you ever go to the Lake Louise ranger station, ask for a guy named Geoff - instead of telling you that you will die, he will actually encourage you to go out and have a good time.

Darin notes that "the climb itself seemed very sustained at the 5.8 to 5.9 level." I did it many years ago and my memory is rather dim, but at the time I had never climbed anything rated over 5.9 and I managed the entire climb - in hard-soled RR's - with only three points of aid. I'm not disagreeing with Mr. Berdinka, as I too recall only a few easy pitches, but I would add that on the other side of the coin, I think there is VERY LITTLE climbing over 5.8 to 5.9 (I don't know what current books give for a rating). I also recall that we found the descent quite an adventure (I had at that time done very little alpine climbing). Somehow, I believe we managed to get the ropes stuck on 4 out of the first 4 rappels so we spent a cold night on the snowy shoulder prominent in photos from the East. In the morning, we rappelled into the schrund, then cut a bollard on the lower lip, and the rope froze in place so that when 4 of us jumped on it to free it, we all went ass-over-tea-kettle down the glacier. You may be a little more alpine savvy then we were, but be careful and have fun.

Alex is right that the altitude generally isn't too much of a problem. However, Mt. Raininer is enough higher than everything else and the climber usually spends enough time at a relatively high altitude that I believe that over half of Mt. Raininer climbers suffer at least some degree of Acute Mountain Sickness and it is not uncommon for people to abandon the ascent due to AMS. The one night itinerary is the most common schedule for climbing the mountain but I have thoroughly enjoyed longer trips were we were able to enjoy the scenery at an intermediate altitude for a night or even two, and some people have suggested that a one-day climb without the stop at a high camp gets you up and down quick enough that the likelihood of getting sick is less.

I'm with Will. Lover's Leap is one of the coolest crags I've ever climbed on. It has great climbs in just about all grades, and the place is absolutely gorgeous. I've climbed at Donner Summit, as well, and while it has some good climbs it just doesn't compare.

I believe it is 5.7, but the standard route on Snowpatch is outstanding. The W. Ridge on Pidgeon is probably the best 5.4 (or whatever) on the planet. The N. Ridge of N. Howser is a good moderate alpine climb.

The Petzolt Ridge is a wonderful climb on great rock in an exciting setting. It is long, however, with six or eight rock climbing pitches followed by what must be a thousand feet on the upper Exum Ridge, and it is pretty serious climbing if you are only a 5.7 or 5.8 leader. I climbed it with a girlfriend about ten years ago and we started from the lower saddle at about 6:00 am and returned at about 7:00 pm. For a rack, we took a standard selection of maybe six smallish wires and eight camming devices up to 3", and I don't remember thinking it was inadequate. We took only one rope, and I ended up downclimbing part of the rappel on the Owen Spaulding route. Notwithstanding my complaints in the "rangers lie" thread, we received accurate and helpful advice from the climbing ranger at Jenny Lake. There are dozens of excellent Teton climbs that are rated under 5.7. The Upper Exum is good, as is the Coven Route on Mt. Owen. I believe Baxter's Pinnacle can be climbed at 5.6; there is an excellent long moderate route on "Cemetery" (Symmetry) Spire, the CMC Route on Mt. Moran is tons of fun ...