mattp

I climbed the North Ridge last August and at that time it was barely possible to complete a more direct approach up the middle of the Coleman Glacier while much easier to climb the right edge of the Coleman to the height of the bottom of the headwall, and then traverse up and left, then down and left to end up below the headwall. This is, I believe, the most commonly used Summer approach for both the Coleman Headwall and the North Ridge and this approach usually does not require any descent into and climb out of a crevasse.

I have a fiancee who is prone to worrying even when I'm late coming home from work, but somehow she seems to be able to accept my climbing addiction (that's one of the reasons I'm marrying her-she's an enabler). She knows enough that I can't very often get away with telling her that it is perfectly safe, unless perhaps I'm going to Exit 38, so I don't try that anymore. She asks a lot of questions when I'm headed for a mountain climb and she believes that mixed climbing is probably the most dangerous thing I do (she may be right, though backcountry skiiing on a good day is often not very safe, either), and she'll worry no matter what I say. Still, she wants to know where I'm headed and with whom. Like you, I explain that on any mountain outing I could easily get stuck for an extra night without anything having gone very far wrong, so she should try not to worry too much and certainly should not call the calvary until noon or whatever the following day (later if it is a long hike in and out). As often as I can, I try to express my appreciation for her tolerance.

Early in the season, the Adams Glacier is a very easy climb but it is an icefall so watch out for holes and consider that seracs topple over sometimes. While it may feel like 55-60 degrees, glaciers just don't hang at that angle and neither do volcano's (I bet you would have difficulty finding any terrain on any of the Washington volcanos that is truly 55-60 degrees for more than a few hundred feet - even the Willis Wall on Mt. Rainier. These slag heaps just can't stand up. You could run into a blocking crevass that requires you to climb 55 degree ice but unless you went later in the season, I would be very surprised.

Y and Caveman are right that there's a lot to do in the Enchantments but your initial post indicated that you wanted to spend a day on a glacier. Although there are some small glaciers in the Enchantments, you would have a hard time finding one of them interesting enough to occupy yourself for a day. Mt. Shuksan is one of the most beautiful peaks around and would make a good choice, but I don't know what you'd do for four days. Mt. Baker has larger glaciers, and the Coleman on the west side is often a good place for ice climbing practice which would be found near the campsites from where you would climb the old standard route, the Coleman-Demming, or try one of the harder climbs like the North Ridge or Coleman Headwall. Similarly, if you were to head for Forbidden Peak, it has several excellent routes on good rock and two very good alpine climbs, the N. Ridge and the NW Face, and without travelling anywhere you could combine the trip with an ascent of Torment (a mountain climb), Sharkfin (another rock climb), Boston Peak (probably not quite as good) or Sahale (a gentle glacier climb from that side). If you headed up there mid week, you could probably even get the permit for it! If the weather is marginal but still OK, I would suggest Mt. Adams. It is often fine down there when the North Cascades are getting drenched. Have fun.

Brian - I agree that it is rediculous to limit the number of climbers on the South side of Mount Hood in the name of controlling environmental impact. A big rubble heap, it probably wouldn't look any different or serve any different plant or animal communities no matter how many people hiked up and down. And the promotion of "opportunities for solitude" is a B.S. excuse for "let's keep the people out so we have less work to do." Consider the West Side road at Mt. Rainier: from a management perspective, what good could come from opening it to the public? There would only be more to maintain, more need for patrols, more people needing rescues in a now rarely visited part of the park, etc. There may be some in the Park Service who feel it is their job to facilitate public use of the National Park, but aside from such a subjective motivation there would be no push to reopen the road. I also agree that chainsaws ought to be used where necessary to maintain trails in the wilderness. If used to clear away a blow-down on the trail, I doubt the noise, smoke and oil spilled from the running of a saw for five minutes or even a whole day would have any lasting detrimental effect on plants and animals in an area. I wonder if any objection from the Alpine Lakes Protection Society is actually based on a direct opposition to the use of chainsaws or to something else they might represent. And I doubt that a knee jerk reaction against all mechanised equipment is shared by most people who consider theirselves environmentalists. I would say a similar thing about the fixed anchor debate. It is not environmentalists, or certainly not mainstream environmentalists, who oppose "fixed anchors." It is people that have some kind of anti-climber agenda. I can think of lots of reasons to oppose climbers or climbing, and I can understand an opposition to the installation of bolts in particular, but we don't see the same kind of opposition to trail building or trail maintenance, bridges across rivers, outhouses, or to a myriad of other "installations" in wilderness areas. I have talked to Harvey Manning and I haven't asked him about skis or about bolts, but I bet he would be more on the side of access than non-access. I know he has opposed the imposition of quotas and would not favor limiting the numbers of people climbing Mt. Hood, and I rather doubt he is in favor of a blanket ban on bolting in wilderness areas. I bet he would be concerned if he were shown that backcountry skiers were destroying the meadows at, say Paradise, or if he were shown that the bolts on Liberty Bell were leading to some kind of irreparable damage. I also agree that "environmental intolerance" is a problem and this applies to recreationists as well. Many of my back-country ski partners are seriously wigged about snowmobiles on the south side of Mount Baker although I point out to them that as far as I know it is the only alpine area in the State where snowmobiles are allowed. Similarly, I have heard climbers voice the opinion that hikers should not bring children on the trail to Little Si or to the railroad bed at Exit 38. And yes - to export raw logs is an absolute crime and pure stupidity!! One day, not too long in the future, we are going to be buying those same logs back from Japan -- at a hundred times the price that we exported them! And I know that this is probably anathema to you, but on this issue I would probably rather trust a socialistic government than a capitalistic one, because if we did have a socialistic system, with governmental managers making the decision to export or not to export apart from some measure of short term profits, I doubt we would have sold all our big logs to Japan during the 70's and 80's. I'm not saying that I'm going to vote socialist in the year 2004, but I'm just saying that I disagree with your suggesting that a socialist-environmentalist agenda would be bad for the management of public lands. Of course, there is nothing that says that capitalists can't plan in the long-term, but it just seems that American capitalists are unable or unwilling to do so – certainly not the timber or mineral or oil-producers. I hope you are allowed into Mt. Cruiser because I bet you would have a good time if you were, and I am equally willing to bet that the impact of your footsteps would be undetectable – even to the most ardent preservationist. Rock on, Mr. Rybolt. I hear Mt Cruiser is awesome! -Matt

Bryan - It appears that we both would advocate preserving wilderness environments and public access to those areas, and I absolutely agree with you that the "no mechanized" and "solitude" interpretations of the wilderness act are pure bullshit (though I believe these are not provisions within the act itself but provisions in the rules that have been adopted to carry out that act). However, it is interesting to me that even if we agree in general about what we might like done with our public lands, we seem to have a completely different view of the politics of the situation. 1. I do not believe that the spotted owl controversy was driven by any "socialist agenda." The preservation of owl habitat certainly WAS promoted by government regulators who sought broad control over logging practices and the issue may have been over-hyped by environmentalists opposed to logging operations, and while it may be true that the biology behind the issue was obscured by the political agendas of the parties involved, I do not believe it is socialistic to think that logging in old growth forests should either be halted entirely or severely restricted. Or it is socialistic, I guess I am a socialist. The logging companies have removed just about every big tree from lowland forests all the way from Mexico to Canada, and I DO think it is time to stop. We can build houses and make paper from second growth. 2. I do not believe that most environmentalists want to keep us from using public lands for recreation. I know several environmental lawyers and activists, and every one of them is a backcountry skier, hiker, climber or all of the above. In the thirty five years that I have been engaging in wilderness sports, I have not once met an environmentalists who suggested I should not go into the back country. However, government land managers have been closing roads and trails, enacting rules against public use of public lands, and doing whatever they can to discourage me at just about every turn. 3. If any group has discouraged public comment on their activities, it would be the logging and mining companies and the legislators and bureaucrats who support them. Example number one: the timber salvage rider. Any environmental group that wants to accomplish anything with regard to the preservation of public lands has no choice but to try to generate public attention whereas any private developer or miner or logger has exactly the opposite motivation because public attention will only generate increased costs and possibly cause their plans to be tanked. 4. I think the judge in Idaho was probably 100% wrong. Having noted these differences of opinion, I should say that I do not believe that our public lands should be locked up and that all resource extraction or mechanized activities should be halted. There is a lot of public land, and I believe there is room for recreational use, habitat preservation, and resource extraction. In the North Cascades, for example, I think it is great that the snowmobiliers have been given access to the south side of Mount Baker and the road up toward Mt. Watson, east of Baker Lake, but I am just as glad that most of the rest of the areas adjacent to the N.C. park are closed to their use and I would hate to see any of the remaining uncut areas logged though if there can be some managed harvest of second growth, I would have no objection. Matt

I believe the northwest ridge might be a better choice, though I have not climbed the west ridge (I have skiied both the West Ridge and the Pinnacle Glacier headwall, however). This recommendation is based on the fact that (1) I have climbed the northwest ridge (three times), (2) I know several people that have also climbed it, (3) I think it is a little more distinct, especially higher up, and (4) it is closer to the approach trail. The northwest ridge starts with a few thousand feet of rock hopping, and care must be taken to avoid sending a boulder at your buddy or merely turning one over and crushing a finger or something. However, it is not too bad in comparison to most other volcanic ridges. Higher up, you will encounter snow and be forced slightly left before climbing back up to the crest - there are a few hundred feet of steep snow climbing here and an axe will be absolutely necessary (crampons probably not) but the difficulties are over shortly. From the northwest summit, follow the ridge and zig zag around a few crevasses to reach the true summit. This is a fun outing, and easy enough that friends of mine have taken kids up (and down) it. I've climbed it in June, July, and October, and in October I could have used crampons on the steep snow higher up. It is steep enough there that if you are not comfortable with the exposure, a couple of pickets and a rope would be good, but otherwise just bring a good sturdy pair of boots. [This message has been edited by mattp (edited 07-15-2001).] [This message has been edited by mattp (edited 07-15-2001).]

Brian - I hope you are right that we will see greater funding for maintaining the roads and trails on public lands, but I can't resist responding to your criticism of the "Clinton era roadless proposal." Do you really think we need MORE roads in the National Forests? Wouldn't this, as you put it, strain an "already overburdened system" even more? I believe the roadless area proposals were based upon an inventory of areas that are currently roadless. It is my impression that, for the most part, new roads on public lands are built with public funds that are usually spent for the benefit of private interests. I can only think of one new road on public lands in Washington State that has been built for public access in the last thirty years -- the road to the new Mount Saint Helens visitor center, but scores of roads have been put in, at public expense, for resource extraction. Recreational users are then dis-served when these roads are decommissioned or allowed to fall into disrepair, but they really wern't built for us anyway and I doubt that many of these decisions are made out of a desire to preserve nature but, in general, on the practical reality that less access means less cost, less need for patrols, fewer rescues, etc. I believe that in most cases, even if it is cited as a reason, the reduction of environmental impact is mosty just an excuse (the idea that we are promoting conservation by closing a road in a valley that has already been both mined and logged is rather ludicrous, isn't it?). I agree with you that it would be a good thing if more of the existing roads and trails were to be maintained.

Maybe we should have a Ballard chapter of the pub club. There are at least six or eight regular posters here in little Norway.

Those swallows may actually be swifts. Did you get a good look at them?

I agree with most of the advice above. Tell your friend to take a half length ridgerest, the lightest sleeping bag he can find, a minimal first aid kit, and few extra clothes. Iodine instead of water filter. Don't bring camp shoes or tevas. One headlamp is sufficient for a party of four if you are not planning to travel at night. Consider a tarp instead of a tent, perhaps a poncho/ground cloth instead of rain gear, and don't bring as much or as fancy a bunch of food as he think he needs (I have almost never been on a trip where we ran low on food and most of the time we come back with stuff sacks full of things we didn't eat). As was noted above, however, consider whether your friend has the experience and judgment necessary to take care of himself without all those extra things that are generally carried for a reason, even if they can be done without. As to the choice of a pack, I would urge caution. Many of the super light packs do not carry even a medium heavy load very well. My Khamshin, for example is great for an overnight trip without full climbing gear but for loads heavier than that I much prefer a pack with a stronger frame and better hip belt – for me, the extra two pounds are well worth it in this department.

It is entireliy feasible as a solo climb, but it is big and remote and you better be both confident and competent. The hike itself may prove daunting by yourself, and then there is the glacier crossing which, while short, is not trivial. After crossing that glacier, I once climbed and descended the buttress entirely unroped except for one rappel low down on the route, but I had a partner on this outing and we gained a great deal of confidence from knowing that there was another guy there, and that we had a rope and gear in case we found something we weren't quite cool with. Have fun and be careful!

check out the discussion from a few weeks ago. http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000111.html

Pete A is also right about Jeff Smoot's volcano guide. Better information can be found in the prior book, Oregon High. Smoot misses the mark on a number of climbs such as, for example, his description of Yocum Ridge on Mount Hood. For twenty five years this has been one of the most famous winter climbs in the Northwest and has been generally accepted as a fantastic climb when it is properly rimed up. Mr. Smoot delcares it a rotten-rock-death-climb and fails to point out the appeal as a rime-ice classic. Mattp [This message has been edited by mattp (edited 07-12-2001).]

Pete a is right. North Sister is a great climb. I have and would again climb it mid-season and late season though I might, as Pete suggests, avoid couloirs (I once climbed Early Morning Couloir in August and found it to be quite good, however). Being a volcano, the whole thing is one big slag heap but that doesn't render it unworthy. It just means that climbers have to use some judgment and be aware of where they are and what they are doing in relation to others in the area. There IS constant rockfall on the face left of the standard route, but I can't imagine attempting that face unless it was entirely covered with snow and conditions were cold and stable. Mattp

Are you guys saying that the E. Buttress is class three, or are you braver than the average bears? Or might you be referring to the ramp route up the middle of the face left of the East Buttress (a fun outing that truly is class three)?

Lambone - I agree, it's great to see the "newbies" out climbing - and especially out trying something a little more adventurous. They can get in the way some times, and I even had to rescue someone this weekend, but the enthusiasm is great and I'm frequently reminded that sometimes I lose track of the fun and exploration of it all in the desire to accomplish or perform. I'm always ready to try and offer whatever encouragement and advice I can, though the old guy with the helmet on is not necessarily the one they want to listen to and I'm sure my "helpful advice" may at times sound like some lame platitude or perhaps even a condescending put down. mattp

A-dog - The Burger-Stanley has 4" cracks on the first and last pitch, so bring a large piece or, if you want to sew it up, two. Otherwise, bring a stadard rack. By the "off width" I am guessing that you are referring to the flared chimney above the chockstone. The hard moves are protected by a chockstone or some fixed gear or something way back in the crack, and nothing special is required (maybe if you had a #27 camelot you could put it over your head). - Mattp

If you want to carpool, I know at least one person that would like a ride to Darrington and back on Saturday.

The D-Town weather forecast: sunny. That means that we can go climbing after work, and the trail project will probably conclude by 3:00 pm both Saturday and Sunday, leaving plenty of daylight left for those who want to play. Three O'Clock Rock has climbs from 5.5 to 5.11, all trad to all bolts (most routes require a small rack). Come on out.

Caveman - didn't you have an agenda with a crowbar?

The Darrington trail project is not full, but if you go to the WTA web page it may appear that it is. We'll be there, at the Three O'Clock Rock trailhead in Clear Creek, at 8:30 am Saturday and Sunday.

There's still room in our work party at Darrington this weekend. To sign up in advance, go to www.wta.org, and select "trail teams," then scroll down to the date. Darrington Climbing tee shirts will be given out to the first 15 who show up each day.

I'm with Smoker and Rodchester. Whey you encouter other parties who you feel are inexperienced, just deal with it and continue on with your day. In some cases you may be able to suggest ways they might make their outing (and yours) a little safer but remember: those "other guys" have just as much a right to be there as you do. Even if they are complete losers and even if they are likely to get theirselves in trouble. We are just being arrogant and forgetting what it was like when we were the new climbers if we think that only parties who climb by "acceptable" methods or only those who are "competent" belong on the routes we want to climb. The suggestion to stay off popular climbs is a good one if you do not want to share the experience with other parties, whether they be more or less qualified than your own. - Matt

Hey all you public minded climbers. Come on out to Darrington t get dirty and have some fun working on the trail this weekend. Last year we were able to climb after work, both days, and it looks as if the weather forecast is in our favor again this year! - Matt Perkins 781-2520