Peter_Puget

While the details are about this "confrontation" are vague. It is unfortunate that situations like this develop at all. What is surprising is that it comes as a shock to anyone. I would just say look back and review the comments made on this site that were/are directed to any variety of persons who do not actively participate in online discussions. Clearly only a fool would think that there would not be animosity generated from them.

Charlie - I agree with you too! At least in so far as the rating is off a bunch as several were in your list. I have sent info to almost all the guidebook writers in Washington. Some I could tell weren't that interested others went out of their way to thank me. One even said that despites lots of complaints on the internet, I was only the second person to actually send him something.

If you think there is a problem with a rating, posting here is great but writing the guidebook author in a constructive manner might be even better!

Hold on to your hat Retro. I fully agree with your assessment. Also ratings differing only a letter grade or two are not worth arguing about. As far as ratings not being fair to the newbie I think that ratings have in general been over inflated in recent years especially with regard to certain areas. For example take Damnation Crack or Godzilla or Outer Space traverse pitch and compare it to some of the 5.9s at Si/38. The three routes I have mentioned have been rated essentially the same (or lower!) for years and yet I bet concensus would indicate that they are indeed harder than those at Si/38. Grade inflation is in fact playing games on "bright eyed bushy tailed enthusiastic newb[ies]" and could lead them into climbs way over their heads at other areas. For example: at the Meadows or even Tieton.

As usually with any bolting related question the answer is most unequivocally “it depends.” In general I will concurr with Will's first item which can should often be applied to new routing in general - if the route is not a trivial or easily top roped variation, I would say that a bolt is not out of line. Some comments here suggesting that bolts are difficult to place vastly overstate the difficulty of placing bolts. It is remarkable easy to place bolts correctly. This may be the cause of too many bolts. The majority of bolt failures, not associated with degradation from aging that I have personally been aware of were most likely the result of defects in the manufacturing of the bolts themselves. I can think specifically of an anchor that failed on me and the recent failures I have heard of on Town Crier. The clear exception to this is with 1/4” stainless. These guys are very easily damaged while placing. Of course I would suggest that if you are replacing a pin with a bolt the very smallest size you should consider is 3/8”. I would also note that hooks have a very real possibility of damaging the rock. I have personally witnessed a fall caused by rock breaking when a cam hook was used on the first pitch of Dana’s Arch at Index. Maybe one bolt can replace two fixed pins thus actually reducing the visible impact of fixed gear on the route.

Don - I want you to answers all my questions. Great response. I have always wanted to climb this guy - I am printing off your comments in case I ever do!

I agree with the sentiment that the rock is generally quite bad esp. when compared to Peshastin. That said I must admit to having gone there several times to climb and several times for a hike with the family. The routes are generally small with a propensity for looseness esp. - pebbles prone to popping. Sometimes the routes cross layers that seem like unconsolidated riverbeds. There are two approaches. One as Whopper described, where you descend into a valley. The other starts much closer to the highway. It might be possible at some points to see some of the crags from the road. The landscape can be quite pretty and the mix of trees even includes some true Firs and Larch. If you approach from the Upper side, the Sphinx has a couple of good climbs. At least I think it’s the Sphinx and there is a good TR (Steep groove, 5.10) to the right of the main route. Further up the trail are a few more worthwhile routes although they are quite short. If approaching from the Lower side there is a 5.10 (a?) in the guidebook that is fun and right to its left a new 5.10. Uphill from those climbs is a 5.10d route in the guidebook that is very intimidating just to look and when the rock quality is considered it’s even more amazing. A 35’ route is a big wall here! Capt. – The rock here is nothing like the desert sandstone.

Retro you're always in the room! My reply to Dru was clearly an aside speaking to his statement: "Slings around trees don't kill trees" I agree with that threats have no place here. If you are suggesting I threatened anyone let me know when. As for editing I have edited twice I believe (just went to do a search) Honestly can 't remember why the first one was doen the second because I felt I wrote too fast and when I went back at the end of the day decided to rephrase something. In a highly charged enviroment surely you can't view such a thing as a purposeful strategy? But then again maybe you can. [This message has been edited by Peter Puget (edited 09-23-2001).]

The same issue was brought up on this thread: http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000950.html

Are the nuts still on the bolts? Would it be possible to get on a route and find yourself in a dangerous situation due to missing hangers suddenly being encountered by surprise?

Quote from Retro: "Does anybody really buy this bullshit? Do you know how fast trees growing from cracks on SnowCreek Wall do not grow." Rejoinder: Now to be clear Retro, I never said or impled that I was speaking of a tree on Snow Creek Wall. (Here is the whole post relative to trees:"My guess is that a bunch of slings around a tree could kill it. If the tree grew! Earlier this year I returned to an area I hadn't been for ten years or so and was shocked when I saw how embedded into the tree the slings were that I had left on my last visit. Noticable groves were left in the trunk!")I was directing a comment to Dru regarding the possibilty of a tree being killed by slings. Mattp's points do make sense; however, there posting here should have been a needless and unneccesary restatement of the obvious. It is truely sad that it wasn't. ChuckK - Quote -"It certainly is condescending, and perhaps smarmy." DEF:Condescending - showing or implying a gracious or patronizing descent from dignity or superiority. (Random House Dictionary) DEF:Smarmy - excessively or untuously flattering, ingratiating, serville affectionate,etc. (Random House Dictionary) Chuck, I do not think I am being either condescending or smarmy. My position is that these guys are not behaving in a proper manner. Smashing hangers is not acceptable behavior. Their insults are designed to stifle debate and cow anyone with a slightly differing view. As with any person/groups not meeting the most basic behavioral norms demanded by any society/group in any culture on earth they can be told to get lost and its not condescending. I'll let you figure out why smarmy doesn't fit. Maybe there is a reason that you "..find most of the pro-bolt missives to be simplistic and ignorant. " Further quote - "Hey Peter, Isn't that: 1. Contemptuous insults, 2. An attempt to stop any real discussion?" Well since I do find their behavior contemptuous and in a broad sense it is an insult I'll agree with you. I would like to say however that it is an opinion borne out of direct contact and many attempts at trying to improve the level of discourse over this issue. It is not an attempt to stop any real discussion in fact it is something quite the opposite. Imagine a room in which two sides are debating an issue and a small number of them predominatley of one side are screaming obscenities at every opportunity. Their screaming and yelling prevents any real discussion. If everyone else in the room ( on both sides of the argument) forced them to leave, then the real discussion could start! Again, I say review the threads regarding bolting. I am neither pro or anti bolting. And have often suggested areas of shared ground between bolters and anti bolters. Several times I have asked the anti-bolters questions and they have been ignored or answered incompletely. I have always responded to any serious query. Retro's response quoted above does more to clarify his anger and lack of logic than to answer any of my arguments. I wonder if you felt his reply was as "simplistic and ignorant" My point is that removing the bolts will guarantee the placement of slings. Thus Retro is in fact advocating sling relacement. In my view, his viewpoint by not seeing that is simplistic and ignorant. His sense of duty in removing old slings is grand but I'll wager a dollar he did not remove all the slings on the route the last time he climbed it. But ChucK my criticisms go beyond Retro he is merely an easy and convenient target who is active in this thread. The anti bolting side has a pervasive element in it that is exactly as I described. This element is not one but many individuals.

If I remember correctly the initial pitches (first 2) of the direct start were the most difficult. They were a series of short corners between slabs and ledges. Rope drag potentially a problem here. The protection was bad in that if you fell getting out of a corner you would definitely hit the slab/ledge below. The corners (august) were also a bit wet and muddy adding to the fun. Not sure if I would say 5.10, but definitely the crux of the route in terms of difficult moves. Not the most fun climbing on the route. I climbed it years ago and at that time the Magic Carpet pitch was kinda fun. I can imagine with all the traffic that it quite possibly has changed quite a bit. After that pitch the rock improved and there was several hundred feet of very easy (mostly 3rd some 4rth) but fun climbing until a broken and vegetated section was reached. I think this is where the bypass joins. I had a blast on this section. All in all I’d agree, if you don’t climb the bottom section you aren’t missing much.

Since Retro has been so open and critical of others I think it is more that acceptable to ask anything in an open forum.

Damn I can't stop posting to this thread but... Dru - My guess is that a bunch of slings around a tree could kill it. If the tree grew! Earlier this year I returned to an area I hadn't been for ten years or so and was shocked when I saw how embedded into the tree the slings were that I had left on my last visit. Noticable groves were left in the trunk! Retro - Certainly a weathered bolt is less of an eyesore than slings! Esp. since sling replacment which you advocated usually results in shiny new slings! Think please!

Cavey - I think your Idea of a segregated area for these issues is good after this one dies. Here is beta for Psychopath: at the crux reach up left for the top of a semi knob and don't try to place gear too often there are good placements available just not alway where you want them. In many earlier posts I pleaded for civil discussion between groups and many responded that sometimes you have to be "uncivil" to these rascally bolters/sport climbers to get your point across. I think it's clear that the self-righteous uncaring face Retro has shown is the true face of those vociferously posting here. (There are others of the same ilk who are merely better mannered and thus remain somewhat hidden but their contempt for others shows thru with equal if more diffuse brightness.) We should in a civil manner but direct manner tell these jokers to get lost and that they are not only behaving poorly but shamefully. In fact we have the obligation. To repeat: just imagine the effect smashed bolts have on land managers. To repeat: People have been hurt. The bolting debate is real and honest people exist on both sides. Smarmy condescending comments should be seen for what they are: 1. Contemptuous insults 2. An attempt to stop any real discussion. I invite any interested parties to review the bolting issue threads and see how the main anit bolt posters have have continuously used lies, half truths, and insults (usually sexual)to cow any differing opinions.

Beacon has some great routes. Unfortunately Smoot's guide does leave out a bunch of them. You might try the library for Olsen's guide to Portland Rock Climbs. I think it's available in local shops (seattle)as well. Haven't climbed the newer routes but Blown Out/Second Wind is/was a great route. There really is a steep section of rock. And the rock is 1000 times better than the columns of Yakima and Vantage.

Mr. Rat you are simply wrong with regard to the fact that there are no bail slings above the bottom of the first "10c" pitch. The remains of an sling-back-off anchor are located just right of the bolts atop this pitch. Of course if your statement is limited to the location of the current useable sling-rap-stations is true but meaningless given the fact that higher up the corner people would just use the bolt anchors. Slappy as I tried to suggest above and in a different way in my response to Pope, these guys are not interested in what anyone else thinks. The are not interested in the so called climbing community. They are more concerned with their position within the argument rather than the argument itself. Using our friend Retro as an example: In an earlier response to a post of mine he admitted to flattening hangers on a route at Vantage. He said he did it because he removed the bolts several times and they kept returning. Of course doing the right thing which was remove them again and again didn't appeal to him, so he chose to flatten the hangers. My rejoinder to his post was a series of questions asking how different people passing by might view the vandalized hangers. Of course it takes no imagination at all to realize the bads ways land managers could view such action. To make his point quickly he was willing to fuck up all climbers relationship with land managers! Cavey made a post saying I couldn't force Retro to argue. He was right. Someone asked a reasonable question regarding bolt placements and look at the insulting replies. Make no mistake these guys aren't heroes and I am more and more convinced their motivations are not based on anything other than vanity expressing itself thru the lens of "proper ethics". I am against alot of what has become grid bolting and was for the removal of the DDD bolts; however, the guys posting here are so full of BS that it's amazing. Look at Rat for example and his comments regarding slings - they are clearly incorrect. I was very frustrated this morning when I saw that this thread had turned into another BS bolt diatribe that I couldn't even return to it until after work. To the extent that the rock is a shared resource climbers must act acording to a shared sense of what is proper behavior. Retro and his kind just want to impose their will on all others. No attempt at persuasion is even attempted - no greater form of contempt for others can be shown. It is this contempt that shines so brightly in all their posts that I find so offensive. Thank goodness someone started a thread about kids in the outdoors so I was brought back to reality as to why I climb in the first place.

I regret writing in a haphazard manner earlier today. My hasty sentence construction suggested that Retro’s post I was incorporating was his last. It was by no means his ‘last’ post but rather the first paragraph of his great work “Dan’s Dreadful Direct Restored.” Also I neglected to incorporate by reference Pope’s post of 9/18/01 to the thread “How to properly install a bolt…?” This will make my marks regarding the sexualization of these posts more cogent.

A word from someone whose parents got him into the outdoors and climbing: Many times I have thanked my parents for introducing me to the outdoors. I remember my older sister absolutely hated going to the mountains. She would scream and fight at the thought of every trip, so my parents often modified our plans to accommodate her. On the otherhand, I always loved going. The funny thing is that now I live in the city and she lives in the Sierra Nevada mountains with climbing all around! I am not saying that kids should be forced merely that sometimes a seed grows where you least expect it to. As for my experience with my kids, I think Dan’s comments sum it up better than I could.

I did it sometime ago and think you'll have a blast. My partner and I were trying to do it as fast as we could so we brought minimal food a rain jacket and a small pad. We left Stevens ( which as someone said earlier is very ugly) I would do it that way again mostly because we hiked most of the less pretty sections at night but also because if for some reason we would want to bail (eg injury or rain) exiting via Salmon La Sac is an easy option. If you are in shape it should be a piece of cake over a weekend. I would love to hike the other sections of the WA PCT in the same manner. Let us know how it goes.

As far as the anchors go not sure when they were put in but immediately to the right were remnants of old slings. Without a doubt the bolts with short lengths of chain are vastly preferable. In fact looking towards Orbit, the cliff is littered with rap slings in various states of decay. Since the alternative (slings) is a greater visible scar. I would say that they should not be removed. In fact the masses of fixed slings lower on Iconoclast are something of a mess as well. Be careful you don't become know as the "Ken Nichols" of Wenatchee. Instead of writing semi-erotic tales of bolt chopping (see below) try a well reasoned argument to persuade others of your viewpoint. I have noticed that the predominant "anti bolters" are all middle aged and seem to write with this expressly sexual style. Could it be an underlying pathology expressing itself thru this issue? Excerpt from Retro's previous post:"It made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside as I levered out the first bolt. And a powerful sense of satisfaction came over me as I hacksawed the bottom bolt and hammered the stump of the stud back into the hole." By the way thinking I might have been a bit strident with my Iconoclast remarks, I'll add this comment: despite the fact I thought the route was VERY mediocre the guy I climbed it with has done the route five times. [This message has been edited by Peter Puget (edited 09-19-2001).]

Forget the "confessional" I'm bringing out the analyst's couch! "proper lady, not a whore" "you meet the mountain on her terms" "gun to a fist fight" "hand drill in holster" "GOD['s DAMN[ation]" "hook and drill" "YOU CRAP YOUR PANTS" "preserved the challenge for somebody who has developed the necessary skills" "protection from the bottom up" What an amazing combination of the profane and the sacred, of aggression and submission. Combining the Madonna/whore idea with homoeroticism. And the wrap-up offering a chance for redemption. Your post makes me realize how many facets of the climbing experience I've been missing.

While I am not convinced this is a good site for this discussion I must ask exactly what is meant by the term innocent when used in the above posts?

Haven’t done Hyperspace but here is my review of Iconoclast. Despite being hyped in previous guides Iconoclast is a completely mediocre route with sections of dirty poor quality rock. It was so unenjoyable that I took Hyperspace off my list. If viewed as a separate route the first few pitches would make a fairly enjoyable 5.9 route but still not a four star route. Friends who have done Hyperspace think my poor impression of the route would have continued had I. I was very disappointed with Iconoclast but would agree that it is harder than the Grand Wall. To be fair I should note some of my friend love Hyperspace climbing it at least once every year. Getting to the ledge is omitted. A – Original Route (5.8): Climb left past a bolt to a corner which is then followed to a belay at a large horn. B “Psychopath” (5.11b): Climb the obvious crack. From the crux to the top this pitch is difficult to protect and can be a bit grainy. The crux is closer to face climbing than crack. Belay at the horn described in variation “A”. TCUs very helpful. 1. (5.8/9) Climb up and right past dirty rock to an obvious handcrack leading through a overhang. A blocky belay ledge is reached shortly after turning the overhang. 2. (5.10D) Ascend the corner to a bolt belay slightly below a small tree. This pitch is dirty, contains funky rock and has mediocre and generally small protection. It fairly continuously difficult as well. TCUs helpful. 3. (5.10C) Continue up the corner until it is possible to clip a bolt on the right wall. Note this corner is contain small tree bushes. From here move up and right to the arete formed by the outside edge of the corner. Turn the corner and continue up knobs passing a bolt. After the second bolt on this pitch there is a 30’-40’ runout with a 5.7 move immediately before the belay. Small runners can be used to tie-off some of the knobs. 4. (5.8/9) Climb a handcrack in a LFC to anchors on the left side of Library Ledge. From here it is best to either join Edge of Space or Outer Space. The bolted finish to Iconoclast proper has old bolts and climbs through the dirtiest part of the face. With a 200’ foot rope I have heard that it is possible to combine pitches 3 & 4. From Library ledge there are several ways to finish the route.

After being stranded in CA, feverish and tired I pulled into Seattle intent on getting home ASAP when I noticed a Cascadeclimbers.com sticker on a nearby car! By the time I pulled into my driveway I had convinced myself it wasn’t real - but was it?