W

I actually thought his post was a joke, I had to reread it twice. Then I visited the website and realized that he was serious. I can see making a website like that for yourself if it was for your family to enjoy, and perhaps some non-climbing friends, but to grandstand into a public climbing forum spraying his climbing resume and soliciting people to ask HIM for beta is just begging to be flamed.

"The fall of the Roman Empire was preceded by the glorification of it's sports heros" -I Forget Who Said This

i don't think anyone holds the stadium thing specifically against the players. and they might play well together. but do these guys "represent" me because I live in the same town in which they play? Are they an extension of me? is their success my success? their failure my failure? Sure, it can be entertaining to watch a group of guys who are really good at playing baseball, playing the game. But that is about it for me. what astonishes me is that people put so much emotional stock into the goings on with a group of men they don't even know. who, also, by the way, earn more in 4 hours than I will earn in the next 20 years, for taking 4 at bats and scratching a few more balls than they field. Maybe I'm alone, but as far as all sports go, I really don't give a shit.

Yo freak: We approached by Chilliwack Lake- a longer drive but much shorter hike. We reached the col bivi in five hours, most of which was spent climbing through the old growth, and up higher, hateful berry bushes, on a faint but reasonable path. I assume you are talking about doing the north buttress. We did the entire buttress direct (Kearney/Knight, 1980) from it's toe. This way involved a total of 22 pitches, 17 of which were fifth class, 8 of which were 5.8 or harder, and 2 at 5.10. Most of the harder pitches were encountered below the Beckey route. Until merging with the Beckey route, there was a fair amount of loose rock along with some outstanding rock. The climbing on the Beckey portion is phenomenol! the routefinding is easy. the chimney/ow kind of sucks but part way up just step out to the right around the corner to 5.8 cracks bypassing the worst of it. We did the entire route in a single push which took us about 14 hours. At the place where Beckey made two penjies right, the pitch above is 5.9 face climbing on lichened rock with little or no protection for a long ways. We both tried to lead it but backed off- after 20 pitches of climbing on the day we found it too hard and runout to do safely. The penji points are fixed and you need to gain a chossy gully 100' right, most of which is 4th class; climb this for 1-2 rope lengths (possibly wet) then regain the ridgecrest in one 5.7 pitch to the top. the summit is a short distance left, or like us, go find your bivy with what little light remains. Bear in mind two things if you decide to tackle the entire buttress: the Beckey topo is good however there is are two pitches missing in the "overlap" between the topos for the direct and the Beckey route, and go late in the summer. There is a huge ledge about 1/2 way up which holds snow that melts and runs down the "easy" part of the route. We were there in an August and the "300-400 feet of 3rd and 4th" was absolutely terrifying: unbelayed, and completely unprotectable climbing on wet rock with running water on terrain that if dry would have been a walk. We originally thought about bivying on route but changed our mind the night before, however, there are plenty of places to bivy all the way up. The approach glacier for the Beckey route has icefall danger down low and rockfall danger up higher- the upper sanctum below the Diamond looks like an unpleasant, dangerous place to be and made doing the entire buttress seem that much wiser a decision. Very aesthetic. Enjoy!

iceman, thanks, i stand corrected. I had heard the 3% figure from several sources but they were as it was unconfirmed. nonetheless, the parks are clearly underfunded. and nps bureaucracy then got the great idea to charge visitors if congress won't provide the funding. the real trouble is, that as fees continue to be implemented as "demonstration" fees (meaning in fact in the case of the trail park pass you aren't really required to pay) people pay them thinking they are required and then the governing agency counts that permit purchase as a vote "in favor" of the fee. sneaky, huh? It doesn't quite work that way at rainier, but the problem is still that we are being increasingly seen as a commodity, particularly by the USFS. The USFS is starting to be run like a private business instead of a public trust. So if we want to show opposition to fees, we need to go right to the source, which is our elected congressional representatives, who have indicated that they would prefer the public pay to use public lands, pay for their own rescues, and pay for the upkeep and stewardship of these lands with additional fees on top of our tax dollars. Start writing the people involved. However, until we get someone in the whitehouse with a brain, don't be surprised if nothing happens for awhile. The people to consider very dangerous (for more reasons than user fees) are particularly Frank Murkowski, Gale Norton, and Dick Cheney.

Stoney, Now that we know this, how can we turn being "upset" into something constructive here? Without advocating any particular strategy, plan, etc., all I can say is this: if I were doing something I strongly believed in, that I later found out was very unpopular with most people- and those people approached me with their concerns in a way that communicated the urgency of their position yet also encouraged a connection, compassion, with me and a genuine concern for right relationship, I think I would, without thinking about it, be much more capable and apt to actually look at whether what I was doing really was necessary, or at least be willing to discuss doing it much differently in a way that would work for everyone. But if someone equally tethered to an opinion as I comes at me angrily telling me to quit or else, I would spend all my energy defending my position, which includes continuing what I was doing, rather than looking at the problem. Most of us have little experience relating to others this way so we have no idea what it would be like. I don't know, people. If you want to pick up arms and go fight the fight, then go right ahead. But in doing so you won't be learning anything new.

I must say that I share a lot of the sentiments being expressed by Stefan and Mitch in regards to the sacred nature of the stone, particularly in the mountains. As someone who is almost strictly a trad climber, who goes to places like Joshua Tree and Vantage only to climb cracks, I don't identify at all with those who see a potential route on every unbolted piece of rock. I definitely subscribe, for myself, to the notion that if I can't climb it as it is, then it doesn't go. This train of thought comes from years of climbing in the mountains without a bolt kit. Sure I've climbed lots of routes that were already bolted, and why shouldn't I? But, you won't ever find me placing a bolt except perhaps on a new wall route. And, as someone who looks at places like Index, Vantage, Josh, etc. as places to train and get in shape for what is 'real' climbing to me- the mountains, it makes it that much more difficult to not recoil at the idea of Washington pass becoming a sport climbing area. It was well put above that washington pass is a training ground for alpinists- not too remote, but with big and difficult climbing routes in a mountain setting. But put down your crowbars and just calm down for a minute. Mitch, you contradict yourself. You admit that pulling the bolts out of Pudding Time would result in an adverse, hostile reaction from others. Yet then you advocate doing it at washington pass because it is in "our house". Even if you are bluffing in an attempt to scare off would-be bolters, does this method lead to sport climbers' understanding of our wishes? Or does it just further divide us into "us" and "them"? Is there another way of communicating the popular sentiment? In one sense, you didn't pull the bolts on Pudding Time at Vantage because you knew it would get retrobolted. But in another sense I imagine you recognize that Vantage is a stronghold of sport climbing and that, at least in some capacity, you wished to respect the local custom/ethic. Can this respect/understanding be fostered with the sportclimbing community in regards to the alpine zone? Can it? Not through coercion and threats but through genuine discourse and exchange? Again, if the sportclimbing community has a connection with us as fellow humans and as fellow climbers, they will have the capacity to recognize that washington pass is not an area that the drill is accepted, and will respect it. And this is not some naive fantasy I have. You're right, Mitch, my climbing skill has nothing to do whatsoever with the issue. I didn't bring it up either. But neither does your 20+ years have anything to do whatsoever with your ability to look at the problem in a constructive way. Again, I agree with almost everything you feel about the ethics, courage, and sanctity of the rock (I started climbing by climbing mountains long before I ever went to the crags), yet you sound hardened and defensive and bitter and ready to attack. Calm down, start by looking at what connects us, and focus on that. Quit focusing on the differences because addressing those will never unite us all.

Peter, Your post is right on. Finally, someone sees it: the issue has never really been about to bolt, or not to bolt. The issue is about recognizing the destruction that ensues when we all give psychological, assertive importance to our opinions and "values". Protecting and asserting the opinion becomes all important and so therefore, consequences are not even visible to such a person. That person constantly seeks, fights for a solution, but there is no insight. Every action of such a person always comes back to the values of the self, which are always bound to conflict with societal relationships. Two countries don't really "see" the consequences of war- death, destruction, chaos- or else they would never do it. Instead, their positions and ideologies are given all the attention. A true community can only form when individual opinions and ideas are placed in proper perspective, not clung to and violently defended. Only then is it possible to see what is right for us, right for the land, and for a new way of seeing to come into being. Keep up the dialogue, people.

by the way, "doigottahaveaname"- to answer your question, when the Rainier climbing rangers meet someone on the mountain who has no permit, most of the time the ranger will register the climber by radio, and the climber(s) is requested to pay the fee upon their return to the parking lot. The higher ups in the park service frown upon this practice, but often there is the person camping at Muir and it's 9 pm and they claim to have "not known" about the fee. Making them leave of course isn't really an option. In any case, the upper mountain rangers will also go to great lengths to explain the permit/fee process and the benefits of the fees going directly to the Rainier climbing program, as well as encouraging those who disagree to write a complaint to the NPS. Most people, surprisingly, seem to find the fee process agreeable considering where the money goes. So, there IS a way to cooperate that is not merely capitulation. Being a mask-wearing rogue won't help the situation at all.

The climbing fee at Rainier is specifically kept in Mt. Rainier National Park. The money goes towards staffing Camp Muir and Camp Schurman with climbing rangers(who perform rescues...), additionally towards staffing the information desks at Paradise and White River with climbing rangers to register climbers and provide orientation and safety info. The money also pays entirely for the production of the blue bags which are used for taking a crap on route and bringing it back to high camp, and the money also goes directly for the cost of helicopter flights to remove the shit barrels located at camp muir, hazard, and schurman. The money also went directly to pay for the cost of new solar toilets at camp schurman (1996) and muir (1998 and 2000). Climbing rangers patrol the routes frequently (not just the regular routes) and provide for resource protection on the fragile treeline slopes where many people camp on the vegetation. Few if any of the climbing rangers are commissioned law enforcement, so, technically, you can not get a ticket. On the other hand, there have been a few in the past who were commissioned (the NPS is moving this way unfortunately) and getting a ticket is a possibility. Also, technically, the noncommissioned ranger could get a description/info/whatever and ensure that you do get a ticket upon your return to the parking lot. But most of the time this is not a problem unless the person involved is openly being defiant. The problem is that the park service is underfunded by the federal government, and the resulting bureaucracy has moved to having climbers pay. I don't like climbing fees anymore than anyone else, but under the circumstances, at least the money is going into keeping the mountain clean and providing professional, acclimatized climber/rescuers on call at camp for both rescue and for general information and assistance. While paying to climb is unfortunate, and something needs to be done, until the federal government decides that the parks are important, the way I see it, if you are going to climb a magnificent mountain that saw 12,000 people attempt it last year, having paid thousands for your climbing gear, you can dig out $15 to have your crap removed from the mountain. Asking climbers to do it themselves is impractical and, face it, wouldn't happen. The camps are far cleaner than they were 10 years ago, and so are the routes. The NPS SAR team has performed many dangerous rescues and saved a lot of climbers, many of them highly experienced. Dissing the climbing rangers to protest the fee is a poor method, as the climbing rangers are about the least "NPS" of any rangers you will meet. They are your peers. You don't have to agree with the fees but there are plenty of channels to voice your complaints with the NPS. Openly flogging the rules will only perhaps get you fine in addition to compromising the climbing rangers desire to work with the climbing public rather than against it. In case you're wondering, the money you pay at the booth goes to the US government general fund and then is redistributed to the parks as the feds see fit. On average, Rainier receives about 3% of its gate take on which to operate a budget. Not enough. Use your pens and your voice and don't take it out on the wrong people.

Everyone is making some great points here. Now, as Erik has pointed out, we seem to have done all we can short of actually hearing what is really happening. Until we get some actual facts to look at, there is no point in debating this any further. I don't mean that we now have to form a tribunal for the s. early winters guys, mind you...but considering the concerns being voiced here I think it would be good to hear from the party involved to explain their side of the story. No crime has been committed as far as I know- but that's just it, we don't know. bc dog- the analogy you use is perfect. Its like the israelis and the arabs- neither one is really interested in peace, they figure by fighting they can achieve peace some time in the future. Meanwhile the killing and destruction goes on and the issue of humans coexisting peacefully is forgotten. So until we get some confirmed info we are merely speculating. Not to mention beating a dead horse. Over and out.

We're doing it right now, Francois. By communicating openly, EXCHANGING ideas rather than asserting them. And there is a huge difference in that. This may all sound idealistic but when you look at how people interact all over the world, in systems and such, it is much the same. A gross, extreme example is listening to those trashy talk shows where people just scream their viewpoints without really listening to anything at all. We're here in a public forum, putting out our thoughts and, yes, opinions- opinions can have validity as long as a person doesn't identify with them in such a way that their actions in relation to other views are merely reactions. Do you understand what I mean by this? With ordinary people, most of these concepts would be totally lost on them. But I've noticied that many people who climb tend towards a higher capability for critical thought; perhaps this comes from the fact that climbing forces the individual repeatedly to be in the moment and be totally attentive to the workings of his or her mind. I am diverging from the heart of the subject again, but I really think it is important to understand communication and such before considering the actual problem. So, the problem is how to retain the natural resource at Washington pass. For all persons concerned, one way or the other, I would urge them to make their concerns known through all available channels; this website is one. Write editorials, and most importantly, encourage open dialogue among all climbers. Don't form opposition. Make it a goal to unite. I truly believe that by getting everyone involved in the discussion and communication, if the majority really does favor keeping Wash. pass by and large a trad area, and makes it known through the example of honest and sincere, not antagonistic and hard-line, efforts to reach out to one another, sport climbers and trad climbers will form a bond in which, in this case, sport climbers will wish to respect the preferences of others and will leave washington pass as is. They won't see it as a loss because the unity among the community, society will be of utmost importance. Again, this may sound idealistic but that is because people have never seen it. This is a foreign concept so people dismiss it as impossible because they are afraid to let go of their old ways of dealing with situations. This may not stop some rogue dude from doing something anyway, but what are we to do about that? Form gangs to guard the crags? Again, the best we can do to save washington pass is to foster mature and open communication with all climbers.

VT- we did the approach, then got an alpine start the next morning and climbed the initial 55 degree ice slope to the start of the mixed climbing. We bailed from there and hiked out; 2 hours after bailing the whole peak was engulfed in a thunderstorm, as were we while ensconsed up to our waist in the middle of the sunwapta river. I think we actually we there on July 30/31 if I have it written down right. Yeah, if it comes in it'd be a beauty.

Good points, bcdog. I totally understand what you are getting at. It is common for people to jump to conclusions and let fear breed more fear. My point had nothing whatever to do with the guys on the S. Early Winters route, more that this thread had begun moving into a debate about bolting and how to "regulate" it or "what to do" about it. I also can see some merit in Stefan's viewpoint above; in fact personally I have never drilled a bolt except practicing in some junk talus, and prefer crack climbing far more to bolt-protected face. On the other hand, I have clipped many existing bolts on big walls and even in the mountains, and have appreciated most if not all of them, so it would be hypocritical of me to totally agree with the notion that all bolting is bad. There are plenty of examples of classic crack lines which link up via blank, unclimbable 5.15-ish sections that would not get climbed were it not for bolts. I think that Stefan's view reflects an understandable, perhaps valid, feeling that bolted climbing is less natural and more artificial than trad because the rock has to be altered and artificial means of protection employed; however, if that thought is taken to an extreme then we might as well put away our cams, nuts, slings, and even our ropes. Some will assert that free solo is the only way to go. So you see there's no end to the possibilities to argue about this or that. So if we can quit identifying ourselves with one side or the other and just look at the whole problem as climbers, and as stewards of the resource, perhaps we will discover what's what without the bias of our platform as a trad or as a sport climber distorting our ability to see. The approach to the problem is all important, not the problem itself.

Stoney, Chopping a bolted route will end the route but it will not end the conflict between climbers. Do you think that this will teach that person a lesson? To use a more worldly example, is using violence and war a good means to create peace in the world? The means is the end. So by ripping out someone's route, you have solved an immediate problem, but the antagonism between you and others remains, hidden or exposed, and it will return again and again. Why is it that we assume that lack of self-assertion of our beliefs will result in us being overrun and trampled by others? Is it because we do not know any other way of relating to others than by taking a stand clinging to a belief of some kind and using it to antagonize one other? If you are trying to solve a problem, trying to come up with something new, it seems to me that thinking from a conclusion is not thinking at all. You ask about the approach I suggest, and I am showing you. Right now, we are approaching it as "trad" versus "sport", "bolter" versus "non-bolter". Can we approach the whole problem as human beings, as climbers, and be capable of having an honest dialogue- an inquiry- with each other without taking a stand from some platform? This may be difficult to see if you've never done it. But this is, as I stated above, something that hardly anyone in the world does. In other matters, we have sovereign nations wrapping themselves in their flags and their ideologies and trying to relate, to communicate with one another through the narrow scope of their views, and as we see this is not working. We continue to use our beliefs and conclusions about everything to provoke one another. There is a different way, beginning with finding out what is right relationship. This is what community really is, and it has to start from there, from your immediate interactions around you; these have a greater spreading effect than you might realize. We're not that far apart on this, Stoney. I love washington pass and think it is noisy enough already with the highway (that I use to get there...) right there. As an alpinist, I particularly enjoy climbing in places where man's mark is few and far between. I think the drill is better off down the road, as you say. I am not implying you should be silent; only that your actions are constructive rather than destructive. There is a way, but you have to find out yourself. No one else can convince you.

I was with Forrest on this one...two other things worth a mention: the Sunwapta River crossing was pretty darn deep. On the way up, we crossed in thigh deep water that was alarmingly swift in one place. We found a better way on the descent- the stillwater "lake" just upstream of the confluence with Diadem Creek. Waist deep, but not fast at all. Also, as you can see the route from the road, bring a pair of binoculars and glass it to see how well formed, or not, it is. As if the warm temperatures weren't enough of a clue, we also discovered after doing the approach (and then persistently going for an up close look) that the upper couloir was completely lacking ice; in its place, running water and the most vile choss imaginable. Hard to say, but I share Forrest's suspicion of the route's seeming "trade" status. A guy in Gravity Gear in Jasper, when we asked for beta, seemed sorta taken aback and showed us a helmet with a huge hole in it, a souvenir of his friend's attempt on the route. The route looks great, but not to be taken lightly either.

Jens, well put. Funny you mention Thin Red Line. When I did the route in 1998, I arrived at the base prepared to lead what I had heard was a runout, ground fall potential first pitch, one in fact that had scored at least one 60 foot grounder by a friend of a friend. Instead, I found the pitch protected by about six or seven newish bolts leading to a newish anchor 10 feet left of the original anchor. Of course, I used them...now that they're there, may as well save yourself a potential broken bone. Yet, I would have led the pitch without them and was ready to do so, and in a way something was taken away from the experience. I later learned that these bolts may have been a very short distance left of the original line, yet it was close enough that looking up and seeing the anchor, and not knowing at the time, I assumed I was on route and that someone had done us all a "service".

Ron, Can be done, however, the Nisqually glacier is usually badly crevassed where you need to cross, and if you cross high, you could be exposed to serac fall from the main nisqually icefall. Considering that you will most likely want an alpine start on the route proper, the routefinding through the nisqually in the dark could be a time consuming problem depending on how badly broken it is. The way you did it before probably the best way overall.

speaking of kathmandu street scammers: the Nepalis, like many eastern cultures, have little to no equivalent for the word "no" as it is considered too abrupt or rude. When someone offers you tiger balm, gorkha knives, sarangis, or anything else you are not interested in, the nepali phrase "Chain Dai Na", which translated means effectively "absolutely not needed", spoken in a quiet voice, will make yourself clear and they will usually stop their sales pitch immediately. Or more likely they may be surprised you know some Nepali and will then want to talk to you (in english) and find out more about you and who you are, where you come from. But saying "no" will only make them follow you, especially if you are abrupt; in nepal if someone thinks they have upset you in any way they will follow you around trying to correct the situation. this may seem like minor advice but sometimes the whole scene can be overwhelming and in the streets there is nowhere to hide. Also, if I may give a plug for a friend, Hira Dhamala from Karnali Excursions in Thamel is a wonderful man and runs a good hotel (The Excelsior), and his company arranges good transportation and tours for just about anywhere. Check it out, and have a great trip.

Stoney, i think it goes without saying that power drills should be off limits in wilderness and alpine areas. I think most everyone sees it that way. And I agree that overbolting routes is bad, and that a ground-up approach is far more ethical and honorable in the alpine zone. But chopping routes you don't like is not the answer. This will only breed opposition. Nor is the collective "community" creating a set of rules the answer either. I pointed this out in an earlier post, but if I may say so, you are not listening. You have a definite set of conclusions about what is a good style, what is right, what is a good route, what is overbolted. So do I, and so does the next guy, and so does the guy putting up the new route at S. early winters. So who is to decide the new rules, the actions to be taken on behalf of everyone? You? Me? Who will do it? As I indicated earlier: if we really look into our own motives, as individuals, for our actions- again, I'm talking psychologically (no one wants to talk about or address this though)- we might discover that the truth of it has its own action, and a person will perhaps then see the true significance or insignificance of putting up yet another bolted route. This action is not relegated to climbing. Even in finding the truth as an individual, to organize it and "convert" others to your way of thinking is to destroy the truth, distort it, use it for your own gain. The best you can do is to live out that truth and by example point the way for others. This may not prevent a shitty overbolted route from being put up on your favorite mountain; on the other hand, all the anti-war protests and organized movements haven't stopped our governments from playing soldier year and year out either. The collective attitude is changed one person at a time, and if you, who are that collective, have changed, then that in itself is sufficient.

I certainly am not advocating the chopping of bolts, let me first make that clear. Backcountry dog, I don't know how much of your post was directed at me, but I was attempting momentarily to depart from analyzing washington pass specifically, and look at the whole issue rather than one part. While it may appear that I am grossly anti-bolting, in fact that is not the case at all. I am merely suggesting, without targeting anyone in particular, that we all give some critical thought to bolting before running out with the bosch. Perhaps you are so enlightened about what's right and what's not but not everyone else is. Yeah, it might have gotten off the subject a bit but I think in all actions, bolting or whatever, that may have repercussions or long term effects be it public outrage, approval, or government intervention, we need to ensure that we are not acting impulsively. That's all; just a head check. Bolts may be "here and here to stay", but without careful inquiry into our urges to go drill whatever looks nice- government fees, regs, anchor bans and monetary fines will also be here and here to stay.

Too bad Mark Twight doesn't put in his two cents here about bolting in the mountains. We'd get a real earful. I think we have to be real careful about indiscriminate bolting, particularly in wilderness areas. the USFS is just itching to throw more restrictions and regulations and fees at us, and if people have an open-season attitude about every crackless piece of rock out there, we could be headed for trouble. So where do we draw the line? Who decides what is classic enough to bolt and what is not? I've also heard numerous arguments about bolting old aid lines that have poor and/or hard to place pro, so that "we can try to free it". Someone once asked Jim Bridwell if the Pacific Ocean Wall on el cap might go free; the Bird saw this for what it was: as a roundabout request to add bolts to a line that includes tons of copperheads and thin nailing and is unacceptably runout for free climbing. His response was non-confrontational yet was direct and left no option for the suitor: "maybe, but the protection would be very very bad...". Establishing new bolted lines of course is quite a different matter from adding bolts to established routes, but in this modern day and age with so many people climbing, and so many people watching us, I think in mountain/wilderness areas particularly there needs to be some restraint, some self-soul-searching by all of us about what is really needed. what is it about this ravenous appetite we have for "first ascents" anyway? This isn't like the old days when new ridges and crack systems await everywhere. So we're increasingly turning to the mountains, or wherever possible, to contrive any new route we can so we can satisfy our urge to claim an "FA". Getting a first ascent may have some special significance for each of us, but what is really behind this urge for it, everyone? Put the question to yourselves. You can come up with just about any reason, but for all of us I think the ego is involved at least in some capacity. If we can put the ego away for a minute, perhaps we will see clearer about what is really necessary; perhaps we will be content to just CLIMB, regardless of whether someone has been there before. perhaps then the mountains will remain, at least in some places, pristine and wild. Establishing a set of rules for everyone to follow is not the answer. I think the answer is to look at ourselves and ask these questions.

Many people take the helicopter to the base- not that I advocate that or anything. I have heard, however, stories in which people found the glacier approach above Berg Lake to be very broken and extremely difficult routefinding. I also know someone who tried to reach the north face by approaching the Kain Face, and then crossing over the Helmet/Robson col, but said it was really bad- a cornice or something blocked the col and the glacier also was bad. But I imagine things change from year to year. Stump/Logan by the way has been attempted numerous times since it was first climbed, including several attempts I believe by Blanchard/House et.al. Until someone proves otherwise, this route seems pretty sick.

When I started climbing, I wasn't even aware that I was participating in a "sport", because I wasn't doing it to compete with other people. It was/is something I do because of the great relationships I have with my friends and partners, and because I love being in the mountains and meeting the challenges they offer. "Sport", or more appropriately, indoor gym climbing and outdoor bolted climbing, has its place for me- as a training venue. Gyms can be a great place to train during the work week, and also are a great place for children and people of all ages to get started learning basics in a safe environment. I don't mean to denounce the comps- but I find it peculiar that man, ever exercising his need to compare himself to others, his need to be better than the next guy, has let competition enter into climbing. As it is, it's always been there in so many subtle and not so subtle ways: from the friendly rivalries among alpinists, to dueling guide services, to heated races to grab first ascents, all the way to the stereotypical huge egos of fat-walleted seven summit tickers. While I imagine that most people will say that the comps are merely for fun, and for many this may in fact be the case, having myself grown up playing league sports and seeing all of the "bad sports dads" (and moms), I have to say that teaching kids to climb and to develop a competitive attitude to go with their skills doesn't sound very healthy to me. No doubt some of these kids will take their talent and competitive attitudes outside and will stretch the boundaries. It is already happening, in fact. Yosemite history is being rewritten; on the other hand, in another light, the heavy air of competition and one-upsmanship hanging over the whole "scene", in my eyes at least, kind of tarnishes what are otherwise some outstanding achievements. Who cares what so and so did if they are just an arrogant an unapproachable person? Most at the top of the climbing standard are not like this, of course, I don't mean to imply that. But it seems that modest climbers are getting harder to find these days. So if you're asking where the future of our sport lies- for me, it isn't a sport, it is just a creative movement of my life; and the future of it to me lies the same as with all other aspects of my life: strong relationships, seeing the beauty, meeting great challenges, developing insight to transcend the limits of what I thought possible, and always- living the state of timelessness. Competition has no significance to me at all. Just my view, anyway.

Why do you care what he thinks? Whether he's serious or not, nobody needs to prove or justify themselves to him or anyone else. I don't need to play his game.