Don_Serl

hey cc, i second what dru says - there's no mystery to the approach - it's all in the guide. the start of the trail is at about 580m, and the summit is 2429m, so it's about 1850m (just over 6000 ft), plus it's steep for much of the first 1100m, and dry by mid-summer... so, don't rush, and take plenty of water. i've daytripped it 2 or 3 times, and it's the only way to go - much more sensible than lugging an overnite pack up to the knoll. plus u can snag the route in a single (good) day when the weather is otherwise unsettled. it's a wonderful climb, so enjoy your day. cheers, don

winni, FS has good stuff to say about the Summit GTX, and he's "captain catalog", so he's worth listening to. the Manta is a worthy alternative though. consider: *** Manta 1930g and cdn$309 (at MEC) vs Summit 2090g and cdn$449 (us$379 at REI) - Manta comes out 160g (6oz) and $140 ahead. *** both have proofed suede uppers, which I normally would not expect to remain highly waterproof for glacier use for very long, but I'm on my 2nd summer with the Mantas and they've out-performed my expectations. the GTX liner in the Summit will provide better waterproofness for sure, but I find GTX footwear kinda sweaty, and therefore avoid it. *** the Summit is lightly insulated, so can be pushed into winter/ice/high mtn use more readily than the Manta. but the Manta therefore fits a tad closer and is a hair less bulky. *** the Summit has a better toe welt on the sole, so can be used with bail-type crampons, whereas i wouldn't trust wire bails to stay on the Mantas - therefore, yoke-style crampons are necessary, which are a definite 2nd choice in my books. (they don't fit as precisely, and the compression of the boot by the straps makes them colder than bails.) that said, I've been totally content using them with Vasaks for summer mountaineering. (I have an older, heavier pair of Scarpa Weisshorns which I use for almost all my waterfall ice outings, with clip-on crampons...) *** I like to fit boots for comfort (two pairs of merino light hikers), and I've never had a hint of rubbing or blistering - they went onto the Slesse traverse straight out of the box... not to mention the 40km walk-out from Beece Creek this summer... etc... *** both have stiff but slightly flexible soles, which work fine for approaches. i prefer the totally rigid sole on the Weisshorns for cramponning - but those aren't available any longer. and they're harder on the feet for walking in. in summation, the boots are close cousins. the Manta has the advantage in cost and weight and is (in my opinion) the nicer summer mountaineering boot; the Summit is likely the better choice for a wider range of activities and seasons. the choice will depend on your preferences and needs, and the compromises you prefer. cheers,

i just loked at the pikshers nice trip, spectacular photos, but, yah, sorry gentlemen, this face is a little short of 1800 feet - like, just under HALF that high! basemap shows the bottom of the face at pretty much exactly 2500m, and the summit is 2783m, so max height is 280m = 850 feet! i led an ACC trip up it years ago which required roping the newbies, and i ran a 50m rope out fully 7 times, so there was 350m of runout, which at 50 degrees slope angle gives 270m of 'rise'. anyway, keep cranking those turns - impressive stuff... cheers,

btw, joke was nearly on me. we really lucked out with the weather, or I'd have been in deep shit clothing-wise: I left all my mtn clothes sitting on a bedside table when we loaded up to leave town, so I did the trip in my street clothes - the ever-stylish pair of Dockers are featured in this photo. not bad for climbing, actually, but they tended to bind some once I got sweated up on ascents on the walk-out. (I also had a cpl T-shirts, a light fleece sweater, a double dose of Merino sox, and - luckily! - my Dryclime and Primaloft jkts. seeings how Gordie Smaill climbed the Cassin back in the late 70s in a pair of jeans, I was feeling pretty well geared up...) cheers, don

indy, reality check is appropriately named, but it's not dangerous, just thought-provoking. the initial cpl slab pitches have very few bolts, but don't really need them. i thot the first right-angling overlap was quite tricky and that it didn't take gear very well at the start - Lyle grades this as 5.6 - maybe he found something I didn't. small cams might help (i did RC about a dozen yrs ago, and i don't think my rack has ever been a model of "best in class"). the crux slab is considerably harder than anything else on the route - it starts at maybe 10a and increases in difficulty as height is gained. i'd call the top section 10c/d on the Apron (definitely not 5.11-), altho the issue is (typically of Yak) smoothness of the surface instead of tiny-ness of crystals like u get at Squamish. my recollection is that the hardest moves are not far above the final bolt (less than 5m?), and the surface is absolutely open and smooth and not very steep, so even if you pitched off a cpl times trying to figure it out, you'd just take a bit of a slide. and then get to curse and try again... i also recall that the various corner systems took a bit more thinking to climb than the analogous sections on Yak Crack, so there is more of a 'reality check' factor there too. the pro was always adequate. enjoy. cheers, don

another early news report: ................................... RCMP say survival of a missing climber on Chilliwack's Mount Slesse is unlikely Sunday, July 08 - 11:30:00 AM Ian Kucerak VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - The search for a climber missing on Chilliwack's Mount Slesse is likely to turn into a recovery effort after treacherous conditions on the mountain have prevented rescue crews from reaching his location. The missing Abbotsford man is said to be an experienced mountaineer. He was short-rope climbing with a partner on the mountain's northeast face on Saturday morning when he was hit by a falling block of ice and fell into a crevasse. His partner had to hike 5 hours down the mountain to get help. Chilliwack Mounties say the area is continues to be unpredictable as rocks and ice tumble down the mountain near where the man was struck. Constable Bert Paquet says rescue crews used a helicopter to asses how to make an attempt to reach the lost climber. The Coroner's Service has been called in as crews continue to try and reach the area where the climber fell. ...................... no names yet, which of course feeds the worries. cheers, don

The list qualifies as one opinion on the 100 greatest ROCK guitarists, but there are numerous obvious absences from the jazz and classical worlds. Does anyone have the original issue (published nearly 4 years ago - how come this is just surfacing here now?) - I'd be interested in learning what the criteria were. It looks like "greatest" = some combination of "influential" + "technical" + "popular" in pop/rock/blues. displays the 5 greatest classical guitarists as: Segovia, John Williams, Jorge Morel, Julian Bream, and Sharon Isbin. Possibly... There's a much more extensive list at: http://www.guitarsite.com/bands4.htm#TOP And here's what looks to me to be a much better thought-through list of the top 200 rock guitarists. At least the criteria are made clear. http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_newguitar.html Have fun arguing! Cheers,

Rolf Ryback mentioned this crag to me when I crossed paths with him in the Smoke Bluffs a few weeks ago. There's apparently a faint trail off the Lynn Canyon loop about 50m (?) from the point at which the Lynn Peak trail branches off the loop. I guess that's the upper level trail, not the lower, valley bottom trail immediately off the east end of the bridge. Sorry, but I don't recall whether it was north or south of the Lynn Pk fork - a bit of a critical memory oversight... but it can't be that hard to find... I recall him saying the crag was about 10 minutes in off the loop. Sounded like there were a very few moderate routes, but that the bulk of the climbing was 11s and 12s. Have fun finding it. Cheers,

day-trip it in july or aug once the snow has settled. 2 1/2 hrs to the hut, easy. brew up and relax for an hour. 3 hrs up the ridge - take the left-hand snowslope mid ht in your photo to the low pt on the ridge to avoid the trickier sections of the glacier. admire the view and snooze on top for a cpl hours. 4 hrs top to car; faster if your legs can put up with running the trail down from the hut, which is an amazing blast! one of the great classic coastal daytrips... cheers, don

MEC used to carry the 'whole deal' (underwear, pile, shells) with thru the crotch zippers; not sure if they still do... cheers, don

bigtree, tks for the heads-up - i'll have to try to get ahold of a copy. sounds spectacular. I can understand the motivation for the skiers - i'd just like them to do their runs honestly, by flying in lower, climbing the peak, then skiing the line. a lot of the best stuff the core Whistler extreme skiers have done has been done in this style (not least becuz it's the best way to suss out the conditions on the line on the way up, and so avoid getting killed on the descent), and I have a whole bunch of respect for that. in contrast, a young threesome from Pemberton recently flew to the summit of Broad Pk and skied the NE face (photos pgs 151 and 152, wadd guide). good work, in a way, but... they then went on to attempt to ski the N face of Bell (!), which would have been amazing (photo pg 149 lower). after failing to get up the S side, they got choppered to high on the NE ridge (the rounded snow-knob below the junction of rtes 38 and 39) and within a few hundred metres avalanched themselves, stopping only a short distance before pitching over the seracs and rock cliffs directly beneath the 38/39 junction. a very narrow escape, and a lesson in why more traditional appproaches, even to extreme skiing, are justified. in general, i find the extreme skiers to be more attuned to the mtns than the heli-skiers, and more 'a part of' the mtn environment. therefore i'm much more tolerant in my attitudes towards them. cheers, don

credit where credit due: the lovely photo of the Upper Tellot Glcr is by Janez Ales; seems like the media don't have to credit a photo within a photo... btw, dead silence from the govt' on the Wadd issue for the past few weeks, but the application is still pending. and the boat is up there... and they're still doing 'exploratory' skiing... cheers, don

The FMCBC, ACC, and BCMC have all written to oppose heliskiing in the Waddington Range. The BCMC went further, and opposed tenure in the Whitemantle and SIlverthrone-Klinaklini areas as well. Good on 'em for ignoring any hint of compromise. Contact is already underway with the Ministry of Agriculture and Parks, who administer all 'flavours' of protected area status. The obvious solution is to have designated non-motorized recreation status. This will not be easy to achieve, but there is room for optimism, and it's better to sort this out openly than to get into battles every 2 or 3 years. I'm confident we'll 'win the battle' for Waddington, but please keep you pens poised - the 'issue' is not dead, and the need for 'speaking our minds' is not over. And on that theme, please send even a brief e-mail if you haven't already done so. The deadline is March 9th, and the community of mountaineers needs to take care of its own business... Cheers, and thanks to all who wrote. There have apparently been MANY submissions.

temps at 3pm sunday: Cayoosh summit (Duffey Lk road): 3.9C Carpenter Lake (Bridge canyon): 9.7C Lillooet: 9C Clinton (Marble Canyon): 1C (still a bit of cold hanging on in the interior...) anybody out there? gotta be falling apart now... sheesh. cheers, don p.s. 7C in Banff...

bigtree, it's perfectly valid to preserve some areas for 'peace and solitude', and to restrict some activities in some places. yup, one has to justify the exclusion, and in the waddington range case i realize i'm arguing for exclusion of heliskiers even though they'll be in the rnge in february and march, and tourers won't be there (mostly) till april and may. for me, that comes down to 'spirit' and 'feel' and a bunch of other hard-to-express sentiments. economics and rationality and logic must be considered too, but the other side of the equation is equally important. no decision on land use is ever unanimous, but i have no qualms nor any discomfort in being hard, hard, hard in my attitude on this one. what'll eventually happen? who knows. but whatever land use regime i have to live with in the future, i'll sleep well for having not held back when the outcome was up for debate. your 'peace and solitude of the backcounrty' viewpoint is absolutely vald. just say this much about this issue, and you'll have done your bit. cheers, don

mtnfreak, et al, i see by the various posts to-and-fro, and pro-and-con, that there is some level of confusion about what i am concerned about, and what i am opposed to. i regret not providing more information initially, but i was too busy putting all my thoughts into a very long missive to Ms. Tetarenko. that done, for those of you with patience i can make amends. i am NOT opposed to the entire Knight Inlet heliskiing proposal. i have no trouble with the concept of being granted tenure for heliskiing in the Whitemantle and Sims-Tumult areas. i think the Silverthrone-Klinaklini application region is far too big to be practical, a view that is supported by a letter from Swede Mattsson, who runs Bella Coola Helisports just up the coast. he contends that it is not possible to heliski over greater than 50km of range without fuel caches, and the KIH application explicitly states that no fuel caches will be made on public lands. without a meaningful business plan in place to support the grant of this area, this looks like a simple 'land-grab', and i suggest zone 4 ought to be cut back radically and/or granted conditionally, with later examination of actual use to determine long-term boundaries. the KIH application is extremely flimsy. it runs all of 12 pages (including 2 cover pages, 2 maps, one google-earth-like photo, 3 pages of informationless charts, and 4 pages of actual content. for comparison, i understand the Bella Coola application was something like 150 pages. responsible companies who get the rights to make money off public lands by being granted those rights by the people of this province have a responsiblity to manage their grants in the public interest, not just for their narrow field of view. there is little evidence of anyn thoguht about any of these issues in the application. my main concern in the areas outside the waddington range is for the heliskiers to not spoil the wilderness experience of the one or two touring parties per year that might pass thru the region. this should be no hardship - each of the 4 zones applied for is roughly the same size as all of garibaldi park! or, for a WA perspective, zone 4 alone is just about the same size and shape as the combined north and south portions of the north cascades park, i.e., about 80km-100km N-S and 30km to 40km E-W. and the application from KIH proposes dealing with "overlap with existing use" by keeping "any flight paths or ski activities a minimum of one kilometer away". ONE kilometer?!?! in a tenure area three or four times the size of the entire north cascades or of garibaldi park, they propose to 'stand off' by ONE KILOMETER?!?! laughable! KIH also has so far made a mockery of the application process, ignoring the regulatory requirements for stakeholder consultation, for instance. they contacted the Federation of Mtn Clubs of BC during their 'investigative' stage. the FMC replied stating their likely concerns, and asking to be 'kept min the loop' if and when an actual application was filed. Mr. Dawson (the applicant) replied suggesting the FMC spend their time and energy fighting fish farms and old growth logging! since then, nothing. nor have the Alpine Club or the BCMC (who has a hut in the tenure area) been contacted. this is public stakeholder consultation? KIH is already advertising trips, despite tenure not yet being granted. see: http://www.knightsinletheliskiing.com/ if they've actually taken clients on trips before the application process has been finalized, they've 'broken the law'. a few years ago, a heliski company similarly took clients out prior to approval, and they paid the price with a (one month? i'm unsure...) suspension. despite what at every turn seems to be a casual, frivolous, condescending, priviledged company attitude, i don't object wholesale to the application. there is lots of turf out there, and heliskiing in new, remote regions is drawing customers from the established operations like Cdn Mtn Holidays and Weigle in an overall flat or declining market. i can even imagine that the presence of a helicopter in the head of Knight Inlet might be of use to climbing and/or touring parties some day, either for access or in case of an emergency. it'd sure be easier to be supportive, however, if the application and the applicant weren't so 'wingy'! so, mtnfreak, i too am all in favour of increased access to public lands, both guided and otherwise. fact is, i get in trouble with some of my cohorts in the ACC, cuz i'm strongly a recreationist, not a preservationist. use it or lose i, i reckon. unless we have LOTS of backcountry use going on, other have a perfectly valid argument that 'their' rights trump ours. that's how most of the Whistler corridor (and other areas too) has been lost as touring terrain to snowmobilers. i'm usually pretty laissez-faire, but i'm totally hard-core about the waddington range itself. this region stands out from all others in the coast mountains, both topographically and metaphysically. not every place ought to be subjected to the full onslaught of modern technological civilization. the waddington range is one of those 'special' places where motorized recreation has no place - motorized access and egress, fine, but 'play with your noisy toys' somewhere else, please boys. cheers, don

I'm too old to succumb to such a pessimistic attitude - or is it perhaps that I'm just naive enough to remain optomistic. I do know one thing - unless you speak up about your interests, whatever 'the other guy' says carries the day. and while I'm no friend of the current government, even they have some degree of social sensitivity - behind each of those voices is a vote! so don't waste your time here; sit down and tap out an e-mail to Mrs. Tetarenko. cheers, don

so far as heliskiing goes, there is no tenure covering the waddington range. Mike flew a bit last year for Pantheon Heliskiing, which was based out of Dave and Lori King's ranch, altho most of the flying went with Blackcomb. Pantheon 'went bust' and have been bought out by Bella Coola Helisports (Peter "Swede" Mattsson and co). the tenure area includes the Pantheon Range, most of the Niut Range, and the northern fringes of the Waddington Range. agreements were put in place to exclude the Nirvana Pass area, which is the most commonly used base for ski-mountaineers. as well, the operators agreed to avoid touring parties - there's a huge amount of terrain out there, and conflicts need not occur at all. they even manage to do a decent job of that in the busiest ski terrain in the province, the Spearhead Range behind Whistler and Blackcomb. Mike certainly has an interest in the outcome - he's THE guy for helicopter access into the Waddington Range, and (as he puts it): "We don't want it [heliskiing] there even if we were to do the flying. We have had, and are still having great support from the climbing and ski mountaineering community even though it is a small part of our annual business. We have had loyal customers and friends like yourself coming into the range since 1977. We have developed very long term relationships and friendships with several people, climbing organizations, and clubs, and we want to carry this into the future." Sure, there's business involved, but it goes deeper than that. cheers, don

right you are, there is an application in place for a heliskiing tenure including the Waddington Range as one of four 'zones'. the other 3 are essentially the Whitemantle Range, east of Knight Inlet; the Sims/Tumult region NW of Knight Inlet; and the Klinaklini - Silverthrone region considerably north of Knight Inlet. I am categorically opposed to any heliskiing in the Waddington Range whatsoever. the area lacks formal nonmotorized recreation status, but that's because it has been remote enough that no threats have be perceived until now. and to be clear, nonmotorized status does not need to exclude motorized access - once the chopper leaves you on your glacier, the silence returns, and the wilderness experience sets in. that's not true for heliskiing, in which the power and 'rush' of the helicopetr is an integral part of the 'thrill'. there's plenty of terrain out there (including the majority of the other portions of the applicant's terrain) where steep-freaks can burn adrenaline to their heart's content without fouling the 'spirit' of the finest high mountain terrain in BC. I oppose this portion of the proposal in full knowledge that the heliskiing will mostly take place in february and march, while most skitouring happens in april and may. why? well, the best I can do is an analogy: a husband and a wife expect mutual fidelity (even today, mostly!). this 'contract' is most important when they are separated. similarly, commitment, engagement, and a certain seriousness pervade the best Waddington Range experiences, and the frivolity and superficiality of the heliskiing experience erodes that for me, even if it is temporally separated. ski-mountaineers and climbers live IN the mountains, absorbing and dealing with the wilderness; heliskiers athleticize ON them, then flit back to civilization. these are diametrically different mind-sets, and I want to see them physically separated too, at least in the Waddington Range. there are few corners of the planet that have not been overwhelmed by technology and eroded by banality, and those of us who value those corners ought to put energy into keeping them 'pure'. I also oppose it in full knowledge that I fly in and out of the Range, sometimes more than once a year. mea culpa. the issue is whether or not to allow heliskiing in the Range, not whether or not to allow helicopter access for ski-mountaineers and climbers. the latter is an accepted part of the Waddington 'culture'; the new proposal is a massive breach of the standards of behaviour that have evolved to their present state over the 85 years since the Mundays first set off to find and explore the Range. if you sympathize, I urge you to send a brief note to Mrs Tetarenko. and pass the information along to friends who also would be concerned. time is short - the deadline is within 2 weeks. once again, the e-mail address is: Diane.Tetarenko@gov.bc.ca cheers, don

rafael, there didn't seem to me to be any way of starting the column without actually starting the blobs instead, if u get my drift. the blobs were pretty scary, but the bottom of the column was worse, just an aerated mess. the most effort on the route went into getting established on the first blob, and I know graham got to wondering - i was out of sight, the rope wasn't moving, and chunk after chunk after chunk of ice kept coming down. he mentioned afterwards that he kinda wondered if i was going to follow shortly. once u get up the first 2 or 3 bodylengths or so it'd be possible if you're really strong to climb only the column. certainly beyond me, but i ain't so strong, eh? anyway, without going up there, one can't know for sure. that was kinda the point of my TR about the climb, and one of the essential elements of climbing in general. you frequently don't know what you're capable of till you give it a try. course u gotta balance that against getting killed, but danger and do-ability aren't the same thing. anyway, you can't tell about either, standing on the ground and speculating. cheers, p.s. pls don't read the last paragraph as me saying one MUST go onto things to find out whether they are doable or not. it's perfectly acceptable to stand under something and say "i don't like the look of that", and to go away. done it plenty myself. but it's better, so long as the danger factor is acceptable, to actually TRY. the 'flash' for me on Shreddie was that far more of my fear was about personal inner doubts about my ability to climb the thing than about getting hurt. once i'd taken the step to actually engage the route, it turned out to be easy to separate the hazard stuff (not too bad) from the doubt/ability stuff (no problems). maybe the warm weather has changed the equation some, but i kinda hope someone goes up there to stick a tool into the thing before is melts away again, even if the answer is "no fucking way, man!" then we can all just go back to waiting for the next chance, instead of flailing ourselves with our doubts...

i just have the suspicion it'll stay up for a while yet. the blobs on the side (which u need to use to get up the thing) will deteriorate slowly, so the pulling will get sketchier, and the initial cpl of screws will be wankier, but i don't see any reason for the whole mess to fall down yet. cheers, don

some stuff was good early on out the Bridge (like Jade, when you and your partners, and then Graham and I climbed it), but it was strange - the lower popular stuff (Old Dogs, Salmon Stakes, etc) didn't come in well, then got hit badly by the warm spell in mid-Jan. some of the hard short columns survived OK, and you're rigth about Night n Gale, but pickings are slim. besides, while ti was limited, there was a bunch of good unusual stuff 'in' up on the Duffey. I think most people just decided to drive 45 mins short of Lillooet rather than 45 mins beyond. understandable in a kinda sketchy season. btw, good going Jesse and Jeff. a cpl good ticks. isnt it a shame that Duffey's Delight doesn't come in every year? (actually, maybe it's there more than we think - just that nobody knew where to look until the past cpl seasons...) -2.3C at Cayoosh summit at noon today; but 1.7C at Carpenter Lake. again, the Duffey looks reasonable; the Bridge looks in trouble, 'cept for Night n Gale and probably Shriek. cheers, don

tks for the info, jonny. still good times out there. especially for you guys - travelling with a buncha ladies! now THAT's unfair... cheers, don

at very least, Closet Secrets is fat... [GR on the first pitch] go do it... and why isn't there anybody taking the chance to get on Shreddie while it's up? it's not so bad... I ain't no youngster, and if I can climb it... come on, lads... cheers, don

jmace is putting a bit too much work into this. leave it to the climbers themselves, I say. the site is: http://www.weatheroffice.pyr.ec.gc.ca/icbctravelalert/dtables_e.html when the site comes up: 1. mouse-click on the map in the area of interest (i.e., for Lillooet area, click roughly halfway between Vancouver and Kamloops). 2. when the magnifying glass comes up, re-centre it if you want, then click again. 3. when the detail map comes up, check off 'high passes' on 'geography' and 'road weather' on 'stations' on the left sidebar. 4. mouse onto desired station and click to get info (e.g., Cayoosh Summit, 1300m on Duffey lake road, about 40km west of the Rambles; or Carpenter Lake, at west end of Bridge River canyon). the info is current; there is no history. however, if you're considering an ice climbing trip and the weather is warmish, having a look in the morning, then again in mid-afternoon, will tell a pretty good story. for instance, Cayoosh is 0.3C at 5pm Weds Feb 14 - there won't have been much melt up there today - yesterday it got to about 2C mid-afternoon. and it has been below freezing at nite. provided tommorrow and Friday are similar, there'll still be fine ice-climbing to be had this weekend. on the other hand, Carpenter Lake is 3.8C at 5pm, and was around 3C yesterday afternoon. it's gonna be dubious in the Bridge... p.s. Begbie Summit (1240m, between Clinton and 100 Mile House) is a decent indicator for Marble Canyon. it is -0.3C today at 5pm, and didn't get above about -3C yesterday. M/C is doing fine so far... enjoy, cheers, don