W

quote: Originally posted by Fairweather: What about people who are quite capable of "earning it" but just want to take their young children, or aging grandparent on a day hike or short overnighter? Many trips on the west side are now "mini-expeditions". The Tahoma Glacier was once a reasonable 2 day climb, but is now a four day trip. Opening this side back to those who work 5+ days per week is only reasonable. The old fire-ring at Aurora Lake or occasional social trail can't be considered true "resource" damage. ( I think there are bigger fish to fry. Don't you?) If you want to lock the public out of a once-popular area because you just don't like to meet other hikers/climbers along the way ("social concerns"), maybe North Cascades NP or Pasayten Wilderness are more your cup of tea. Regardless; I'm kind of tired of hearing about the plans for a "shuttle service" on Westside Road by the park service. They keep dangling this carrot and using the proposal to leverage less popular ideas and proposed closures. [ 03-06-2002: Message edited by: Fairweather ] FW,Who is talking about "locking anyone out"? The WS road is open to the public for walking and mountain bike riding, which in turn access the trails. There are dozens of trails in Mt. Rainier National Park that serve the purpose you need and describe. You ridicule my value (and others) of uncrowded areas on the basis that you can't get to them under your own personal circumstances. Did you listen to what I said earlier? There are many different user needs, Fairweather. Yours might be a trail that you can take your five year old son up- as I stated, there are dozens at Mt. Rainier- try the Carbon River trail. Or Owyhigh Lakes. Or Nickel Creek. Or Snow Lakes. Comet Falls. etc. On and on. These are often relatively uncrowded,(compared to Paradise Meadows) and very scenic hikes. And I have different needs- which is remote, isolated backcountry that takes a few days to reach. That's my need, Fairweather. Are you saying it is unreasonable and invalid?? I recognize your needs, and by and large, the park accomodates them; Paradise and Sunrise are two of the park's most spectacular places, and they have roads, easy trails, big visitor centers, and parking lots; but one little iota of Mt. Rainier doesn't fit into your structure and you consider that unfair somehow, that you are "locked out"? Do you propose to "lock me out" of my (and others) needs by providing easy access and greatly increasing usage? Saying, "go to North Cascades or the Pasayton" is totally unreasonable and selfish, Fairweather. That is like Israel telling the Palestinians to "go find another holy land because this land is holy to us and its ours, and your Gods are fake anyway". Mt. Rainier is special to me as well as to you, so as I stated, FW, we have to SHARE, COMPROMISE, and ACCOMODATE ONE ANOTHER. I am accepting that many places in the park are crowded, easily accessible, have plenty of visitor amenities, and at the same time I think having one portion of the park land that accomodates the needs of people who prefer more remote backcountry and requiring time and work to access it is not asking much if it fulfills a genuine need. I am far from being the only person who needs this. And I will not just "go somewhere else". Sooner or later, someone like you eventually comes along to my new place and says, "gee, I should have the right to go anywhere easily here too, so run along now, Greenie, and head up to the arctic circle, there's plenty of wilderness up there for you, this is my land". Fairweather, I've read your politics earlier, so can you put that stuff away for a minute and look directly at this problem? No one is trying to deny you anything, so quit the anti-government crusade. I don't care how you use the land, whether it is an RV or on foot, but you have to respect the needs of others as well.Duchess is right on the money- wildlife has congregated all over the west side, due to the lack of people. I think it is great that such a place exists so close to a huge metropolis! Shall we throw that away on the basis of "my right to access"? Have we lost our connection to the environment so totally that unspoiled and untouched land in its original state always takes a back seat to "my right to access"? Fairweather, I'm not suggesting we put a fence around anything, but this mentality that humans (read: ME) always come first is what is leading to the depletion and destruction of our resources, and to the utter lack of connection with the environment that sustains us. You and I, Fairweather, are not the norm. Most people live their whole lives in paved worlds and it's gotten to the point we have raised 1 1/2 generations of individuals many of whom have no idea what untouched land looks like. No conception at all. It is not all that is important in life, but it is a huge mistake we are making to have gotten to this point.You don't have to agree with my values, FW, but you should learn to live with them. The facts are that people with my values of wilderness are far closer to losing the ability to experience them than you are. The world is 90% paved over and accessible by the noise and machines of man; don't try to tell me that that isn't good enough for you.

I will add some comments here in regards to the Westside Road- I feel very strongly about this: The Westside Road has been closed to public vehicle traffic for many years due to the frequent washouts and danger from outburst floods from Tahoma Glacier (there were huge ones in 1967 and 1987). Like it or not, the closure of the Westside Road has resulted in a dramatic and noticeable recovery of human-caused resource damage in places such as Klapatche Park, due to the lower volume of visitor usage. 30 years ago, there were often dozens of people camping there, having illegal fires, and generally stomping the fragile meadow into submission. Huge scars still remain, but are beginning to show signs of recovery. The Westside Road should never have been built, in my opinion. It travels up a dangerous river bed, and keeping it driveable to even NPS traffic has been an ongoing and costly effort. Personally, I like the idea that one quadrant of Mt. Rainier is a little more inaccessible than the rest of the park. It makes backpacking on that side of the mountain much more an experience of solitude, and additionally adds a demanding element onto climbing the already challenging west side climbing routes. Some of my most memorable climbs of Rainier are the ones I've done on the west side, primarily because of the adventure had from a long and arduous approach, and at the same time, from seeing almost no one for the entire trip. Compared to hiking trails and climbing routes elsewhere in the park, it is almost magical that such a place exists at Rainier, but it does! The Mountaineers, surprisingly or not, have been among the most vocal proponents of opening the Westside road, citing among other reasons, in emails and phone calls to the park, that it is "our park and we have a right to access!" Well it may be everyone's park but the second half of that statement, in my opinion, walks the line of a self-serving attitude and risks contradicting the very concept for the formation and existence of wilderness as we know it, and for the establishment of parks and roadless areas. One possible merit I can see to opening this road is that it might encourage the spreading out of visitor use and impacts, and thus take some pressure and usage away from overused areas like Paradise and Sunrise. On the other hand, I feel that these "showcase" areas are in some ways sacrificed already to mainstream visitor use. The majority of people who would use the Westside Road, which has no facilities, and, being in heavy forest, few views of the mountain which is what the average park visitor really wants to see, are hikers, climbers, and physically active people. Therefore, I would think that this group of users would be willing to suck it up and either ride their mountain bikes or hike an extra ten miles to enjoy the solitude and pristine landscape of the park's west side that I described above. To me, it is worth the extra effort to have such a place in existence, set aside for the future. To provide easy access would transform it into something altogether different. Places like Klapatche, St. Andrews, Aurora Lake, Indian Henry's, Golden Lakes, have had years to recover from overuse, and need more. I'm sorry, but it is not a god-given right to have drive-up access to everything. If you disagree, then we may as well start tourist helicopter landings on the summit. Or, start logging the park as well, for by that logic, those trees are for everybody and if I want to cut them down for my use then it's my right. The concept of wilderness evidently has subjective definitions by different users. But, if people can at least agree at some level upon the need and importance for remote (hard to access) wilderness and unspoiled mountain land, then I urge you to urge MORA to keep the road shut to vehicles and shuttles. This is not, in my opinion, asking for much in a place that gets over 2 million visitors each year. I fail to see how outdoor-oriented groups can feel "denied" by the park service for having to hike further to experience the park's most remote backcountry. That's the whole point of wilderness, isn't it?

BTW, most of the managers at MORA are very much opposed to opening the Westside road. However, they are getting intense pressure from various groups like the Mountaineers (again, unbelievable) to open it. The outburst flood danger is a big reason the road stays closed. Another is the resource recovery issue. Still another, in conjunction with the first issue, is last years Kautz Glacier outburst, which brings to the top another reminder of how potentially dangerous these streambeds on Rainier can be. That event in itself may be a positive aspect in terms of justifying continued closure of the road. In short, we have to equal or better the pressure put upon on those making these decisions, to that of the groups in favor of development and unrestrained access. And, increase our communication and therefore our ability to compromise with such groups- we all have to share. If regard for all is shown, mutual regard will be returned to us.

Good points, Erik. To that end, I think we need to look critically at the situation in regards to the Westside Road- it is not, beyond a barely driveable, dangerous gravel road, developed. Additionally, there is already a great deal of access provided, "for all", at Rainier. Precedents are what count. I am in full support of the current mobilized plans to tear down the ugly visitor center at Paradise and replace it with a better constructed and more logistically placed one in the upper lot. Upgrade existing visitor services, yes! But tear open remaining lands and develop the little that remains? No way! This is really critical that we speak our minds on this! The park service DOES listen to every voice, but we have to give ourselves one. Show up at these meetings, and let them hear us! True accomodation of all visitors will include accomodating lovers of wilderness solitude, not just RV-drivin', bumper sticker collecting tourists. Everyone's interpretation of wilderness, as I stated, differs; for some, merely driving to Paradise is a wilderness experience, while for you and I, Paradise on a saturday is often far from real "Paradise". I don't suggest that anyone be excluded from using our lands- but with so many views and user types, we have to find compromise! That is impossible if those of us who need and cherish faraway and remote wilderness areas do not stand up to be counted. I'll be at the Seattle meeting.

Old pair of Footfangs: $25 Firm

Barf!

ditto Alex. Consider yourself a free agent in life. Nothing you do should be unenjoyable. I'll see you on the road this year.

actually we might have tried to call, but no one answered, because by the time Sean got the message it had been over an hour since they called. But if one of us did call them I am thinking it was more out of amusement. but the above conversation is accurate...

Chuck, No we didn't- in fact, if the truth be told- Nick, Aaron, and I came into the ranger station and Sean Halling was there and he says "you guys gotta dial in to our voice mail and listen to this message...i just wanted you guys to hear it before I erase it". I guess that makes us bad, bad, bad.

maybe they were getting too many beta phone calls from the rangers at Rainier and had to block their number.

oh, but if you don't support Bush on this then you are unpatriotic and must support terrorism. You must be a communist and a Muslim. And you must hate America too. If you aren't for oil and gas exploration you should move to Iraq and see how you like it there! Can't you see that drilling for oil is vital to winning the war on evil? If we don't drill for this oil, next thing you know five Yemeni students will rape and murder all the women and children in the US. Starting with your own. And your house is going to be bombed in the next five minutes, so can we drill for oil yet?

pope?.....POPE?!?! OH MY GOD!!!!! THEY GOT HIM!!!I...wait. Who are YOU people? I...NOOO! <rat-at-a-tat-tat-tat-tat->ACCCCCCGHGGHGHGHHGHGHHGHHHHH!!!!! ....... (dirtnap)

i scrambled up to the U-notch once...didn't go above because at the time I had never rock climbed. but thinking back, the pitch getting out of the u notch didn't look very hard. Rock looks pretty good too. Very scenic area! If you go there be sure and check out the Swiss Arete on Mt. Sill too- classic line, moderate, fun, at altitude.

www.gwbush.com www.bushorchimp.com

yeah well being the RMI turd-herder is more prestigious- those "indie" turds smell bad, unlike RMI turds.

HEY! i know this one- isn't that the Matterhorn?

oohhhh, man. Gator where are you when we need you? actually that was me that the solo climber got pissed at- as he approached I said, "hi do you have a solo permit?" and he totally lost his shit with me and I had to shout at him to get him to mellow out. then he came down later and apologized when he got back to Muir and explained what had happened before meeting us. Funny guy- we became friends after that. I think he was Czech.that's right, Halling, now I hear you work as a cook for RMI at high camp, and wash the guide's undies down at Paradise.

The funny part was that the solo climber actually had a permit. I doubt that RMI would have liked it had I gone into one of their snow schools and started showing their clients how to do ice axe arrest. Halling, didn't you leave the park do go work for RMI?

Look at it this way- speaking in parallels, it is about 1961 right now. Everyone is whipped up into a nationalistic war frenzy and gripped by fear, but under the surface are simmerings of dissent. As the government feeds off the fear of enemies and the fear of speaking out against the leaders, power goes unchecked and atrocities will start to occur and the world problems will correspondingly spiral out of control, and only then will people begin to stand up to be heard. THE NEW SIXTIES ARE COMIN', MAN!

quote: Originally posted by AlpineK: I thought that whole debate back a while ago about techno music was pretty funny since that term was used for a style of music popular in the 80's. Just shows you how out of touch butt rockers are. What, doesn't everyone listen to Bad Company and Boston? I hear there's another Aerosmith album coming out...

Hey go easy on those canadians- they brought the world Bryan Adams

Soloing in my view when I worked there was someone climbing alone, without a partner. Whenever I would see two people climbing unroped, I used to mention something like "might consider putting a rope on" or "be careful" or something like that, since I had no idea whether they were experienced climbers who knew and understood the dangers or were gumbies who weren't roped on the glacier because they didn't see any open crevasses around. From that standpoint, you kind of morally feel like you have say something, given one's position/job and the fact that as an independent climber one would probably be much less likely to say something. But as far as "busting" people for solo climbing when they are climbing together but unroped- I and most of the others didn't go there. The only people I contacted about soloing were those who were obviously up there totally alone, and who hadn't obtained the solo permit. Soloing Rainier is not illegal- you just have to submit a written request. The NPS I think just wants to ensure that soloists fully understand the risks involved. The sticky situation that we did not like to have to deal with is being put into the position to "judge" someone's skills as being worthy or unworthy and give or reject the request. For that reason I was an advocate of doing away with the solo permit altogether and requiring only that the person consult with the rangers prior to the climb- usually those who are truly not qualified can be convinced to find a partner. It was rare that someone who applied for the permit was not aware of the risks. For what it was worth- I soloed up and down the route all summer in 99, as did many of the Rangers. On the Emmons, the rangers almost always rode or skied down, and two of the Muir rangers in 99 skied the DC. On paper, the park brass probably sees soloing as any unroped travel, but the beauty of our job up there is we as climbers got to interpret and translate rigid regulations into some kind of reality. The only people I ever tried to get busted in any way were those who openly lied to my face or otherwise defied the regulations and acted like an asshole towards me at the same time- especially when my first approach was always to just get them to comply and not compromise my position. Many times I issued climbing permits on the spot at Camp Muir to climbers who pretended to not know about the fee or the quota- I simply told them "please pay when you get down"- almost always, they did. If I had been towing the super cop line, I could easily have taken their info and then radioed down to have them issued a citation, and believe me I took a lot of flak from lackey, cop-wannabe rangers down below who always approached me later insisting that I should have "gotten them a ticket and kicked them out of camp"....yeah, make them descend from Camp Muir at 9 Pm in the dark in bad weather. and give them a ticket, that will make them understand, right? b.s.!I hope this gives you and others some insight into the system and how to work WITH it rather than against it. I don't like the fees and regs but they do go to a worthy cause- removing crap from the mountain and providing toilets to use. To the question raised in an earlier post- if you use other routes where there are no toilets, you still are likely using blue bags, which, if you are disposing of them properly, are disposed of in the barrels at the parking lot or the high camp that you likely will descend through. (the smear technique is really okay for remote routes in my book though). Ultimately, I don't think paying $15 to help remove shit from the mountain and keep the snow clean is a lot to ask if you are leaving your boot prints up there. And while the fee doesn't pay for rescue per se, it does pay the salaries of those who would rescue you. Until Congress decides the park budgets are important and that people shouldn't have to shell it out, look at it all as taking care of our own. As for quotas- if you ever spent a night at Schurman with 227 people like I did while working there in 1996, you would I am sure support a quota. I digressed from soloing, but I think these issues are important- tell your friends! [ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: W ]

Nobody- yeah, no shit! You would think that someone even thinking of attempting Ptarmigan wouldn't have to ask any questions about it, much less call from the foot of the freaking route to ask how HARD it is!!?! Argh! you see what I mean? And Matt, I can't speak for other parks or the USFS, but at Rainier as most people have read in the recent Outside and many other articles about Gator and the climbing ranger program- things have changed dramatically since about 1994 or 1995. Gator was put in charge of hiring the upper mountain rescue and climbing crew and he hired...well, climbers. Before, many of the climbing rangers were rangers who were NOT climbers, or who were at least not the lifestyle climbers that work there now. Almost to a man and woman, every one of the people I worked with on the mountain were people who try to climb year round, outside of the summer Rainier season. One of my Muir partners came to Yosemite with me after the season to climb big walls. Another had climbed the Cassin Ridge 10 years previous, and 20 years ago had ski-traversed the ENTIRE ALASKA RANGE from Tok, Alaska to the Kichatna Spires, where they then did some FA's. Another ran up and down Rainier in 5:06 parking lot to parking lot. Okay I'm spouting now, but there is a big difference between getting info from these guys than from someone whose recent exploits prior to working at Muir was working the fee booth at Gulf Islands National Seashore in Mississippi for five years.

Nobody- Okay, thanks for clearing that up! Definitely wasn't you-sorry to drag that out but I couldn't let it go. The guy in question had a hat advertising some guide service and his two friends were total newbies. In fact I also remember this guy in filling out the section of the registration card, in the part where it says "Other Glaciated Peaks You have climbed" and he wrote: "TOO MANY TO LIST". His partners wrote "zero" summits of Rainier while he had like thirty or something. As I recall, he wanted to do the DC but the permits for Muir were full and the Kautz was their only option- and i think he was getting pissed that I was telling his blatently nervous novices that the route he was about to drag them up was somewhat technical and not exactly something easy, at least for first timers. But fuck him. I'd hate to see him get these guys scared, or worse, injured or killed. Or make me have to go stand underneath the Kautz seracs for three hours rescuing them, or ride around in helicopters (a risky venture anytime!) because of his ambition and ignorance. He seemed really reckless to me.But I definitely understand your complaints. Again, if you talk to rangers about climbing, at least on Rainier- the climbing rangers are who you want to talk to about route conditions. Even then, just keep in mind that they don't know you and have no idea if you are a gumby or a sleeper bad-ass who's done all sorts of gnarly routes. And keep in mind that they are, for better or worse, likely and under duress to initially assume the former due to the constant exposure to a deluge of unbelievably inane queries and actions. A calm, patient,understated and non-pretentious demeanor will identify you as someone who needs route conditions only, not a safety lecture- and believe me more than a few up there need far more than that! Definitely, you are right about taking with a grain of salt any info you get from rangers at general info desks related to climbing. They aren't up on the mountain, and many of them haven't ever climbed it. One more favorite story: this was an actual message left on the Paradise Climbing Ranger Station voice mail: "Uh..hello, I'm calling from my cell phone at the base of Ptarmigan Ridge at 10,300...we were wondering, uh, that 1934 variation- how steep is that? And how hard is the rock climbing on the traverse to the right? Do we need pitons? Is it hard? We got some more questions...we're going to keep our cell phone on for the next hour or two so call us back at ### ###-#### as soon as you get this. Thanks".FUCKIN A! [ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: W ] [ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: W ]

I might also add that about a week before the Kautz story I relate above occurred, a team of Tacoma Mountain Rescue folks on a private climb of the Kautz were climbing roped together as five. The leader dinner plated a huge chunk of BLUE ICE, which struck his son behind him, knocking him unconscious; because they had not placed any ICE SCREWS (which is what the leader was attempting to do at the time) the whole team peeled off and cartwheeled and bounced about 500 feet down the Kautz ice chute and nearly went over the lower Kautz ice cliff below Camp Hazard, stopping only because the rope snagged on a penitente. I along with my dad (who is a bc ranger) and two other rangers climbed up and helped the team carry their gear out; amazingly they had only severe bruises, road rash, and one gashed eye that needed stitches. And I may also have mentioned as I did to every team attempting the Kautz that Camp Hazard was being directly hit that summer by icefall from the ice cliff and that we recommended camping lower down from Hazard on the side of the turtle. And that it was recommended to move fast while traversing to the chute due to the threat of icefall (doubt that I mentioned the near fatality from icefall at that spot in 1997 or 98, can't remember...). If it appears I am getting a bit too zealous about this argument I am feeling an increasingly eerie resemblance between my story and "nobody's". If it is the same incident, I am amazed at the different interpretations of what was said. I know for a fact I would not have said 70 degree ice! If it's not the same incident, then I still feel this needed some illustration. Sorry to rant. [ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: W ]