JayB

The upward force generated by a leader fall directed through a piece above the anchor will not (allowing for the freakish exception - mini-me belaying Elvis on a 100 footer or something) generate sufficent force to rip out a well placed directional anchor. If the piece that your leader has placed and fallen upon is strong enough to generate this much upward force, chances are it'll hold the fall and your anchors will not have to withstand the force of the leader falling directly upon them. Even the force of his fall rips out the directional piece and the piece of pro he placed, in the end you're no worse of for having placed it. It sounds like you already know this, but what you're really protecting against here is a scenario in which the upward force of the leader's fall lifts you above the pro you've set for your anchors and in turn disrupts them, the pieces the leader has set above the anchor to protect himself fail, and then the disrupted anchor-pieces rip out when the force of his fall loads the anchors directly after he has fallen past the belay, and the two of you plunge to the ground along with your anchor. This very scenario might have occured last year in Yosemite, when two Colorado climbers fell to their deaths after the leader fell just above their belay and their four piece anchor failed (could have also been due to the flake the the pro was placed behind expanding under load as well). If you protect the route properly in the first place, you should be able to avoid ever having to test out the ability of your anchors to withstand a downward pull. In practice this means placing pro more freqently at the start the climb (less rope out to absorb the force on the fall = more force on the pro) or even doubling up the first pro that the leader places above the belay in addition to setting directional pro to protect against an upwards pull. If you wan to play around with these scenarios there's a good fall force simulator that you can access through this link: http://www.petzl.com/petzl/publicActiv?id=GDEPAROI#

Apples and oranges. Robinson was advocating replacing one form of protection with another in order to preserve the rock, not doing away with any protection whatesoever out of a commitment to that ethic. Had he done so, his essay would have been dismissed out of hand as the ravings of a lunatic and would have had no influence on climbing whatsoever. The fact of the matter is that there's quite a bit of rock out there that's only protectable by bolts, and while a plea for judicious use of bolts to protect only quality lines might resonate with most climbers, anyone who argues on behalf of abandoning the use of bolts to protect oneself while climbing them, or for turning every bolted line into an X-rated death route in order to preserve the rock, is going to enjoy roughly the same level of crediblity with climbers that Ted Kacynski currently enjoys with the general public. Not a promising strategy, IMO.

One more vote for The Zoo if anyone's still counting...

Just a note concerning the data/commentary in my post above. Except for the fist sentence, it's all from Tom Moyer, of Salt Lake City Search and rescue, in a post of his that I found during a search of rec.climbing. Anyhow - hopefully it's useful information.

Pope/Dwayner: Dudes...I was just trying to say that extremists tend to undermine the causes they hope to advance by alienating most of the people who might support them. Judging by your comments it seems clear that both of you take pride in the fact that you've always given climbing gyms and sport crags a wide berth. Fair enough, but in doing so I think that you've developed an inaccurate picture of the people who frequent them. Most sport-climbers/gym-climbers that I know do care quite a bit about the environment and, by extension, the rocks themselves. If you appeal to these sentiments when and if you ever have direct contact with them, I think that you'll find that they'll be willing to listen and might even be converts to your cause. Oddly enough, that's more of less what I saw going on in the gym in Colorado Springs. Quite a few of the active old-schoolers would keep their muscles strong in the gym during the winter months, and while there interacted with most of the gym-climbers and sport monkeys. When the weather warmed up a crew of them would usually head out to the Platte to climb together, and after a trip or two with the old schoolers they seemed to be on the same page with regards to ethics. I'm certainly not suggesting that you take a flock of gym-climbing sport-monkeys under your wing or hold sermons in the gym, but rather that your cause might be better served by changing your tactics/message a bit. [ 06-18-2002, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: JayB ]

quote: Originally posted by Off White: Is there some reason why you wouldn't use a double fishermans knot for tieing your ropes together for a rappel? I don't think I've ever used anything else. If I'm rapping down a blank face and the odds of the rope getting caught in a crack are low, I go with the double-fisherman's. If it's windy, and/or there's a reasonable chance that the rope will get hung up on the way down I go with the EDK (backed up with an overhand knot immediately behind the EDK itself and a long tail).

quote: Originally posted by Dwayner: What a ridiculous cliché! Guess what! Making a loud noise about an issue is a form of action. Talk to your buddies at Green Peace, Earth First, Act Up, etc. It is perfectly obvious that not everybody seems to understand that bolting is an issue. Some of us choose to call attention to our side of the issue by being in-your-face and noisy. You may argue that it’s ineffective, but I disagree. Individuals might at least think twice before they drill that bolt next to a crack, etc. and I know there are some new and genuine converts to clean climbing as a result of our ranting. Right on! Keep believing that, and by all means keep on ranting! What the Taliban did for Islam, you can do for the anti-bolting contingent! Who else could take a postition that might possibly resonate with the vast majority of climbers who clip bolts and make it a truly marginal crusade that only appeals to a dwindling number of fringe dwelling zealots! Bravo! Actually, I agree that most climbers aren't aware of the fact that there are ethical considerations that they should take into account before placing bolts in the rock, and that more should be done to promote awareness of this issue. However, until you tone down the rhetoric, attempt to build consensus on this issue through a judicious compromise or two, and/or advocate sensible restraints on bolting instead of an outright ban, the only thing that your ranting will get from the vast majority of climbers that you have effectively alienated from your cause is a good chuckle or a dismissive shrug.

Some additional commentary/testing info on the overhand figure-8 knot... I learned this weekend at the International Technical Rescue Symposium that the figure eight version of the Euro Death Knot is being actively taught to climbers in Canada. I had thought that only the overhand version was in widespread use and that everyone pretty much recognized the figure eight to have the potential to be a really quick trip to the bottom of the crag. Failure of the figure eight version of this knot has already caused a fatality in1994 at Seneca Rocks and an accident in 1995 in Salt Lake. Both of these knots would politely be called "mis-loaded" and impolitely would be called, well - the "Euro Death Knot". The failure mode for the figure eight version is to flip/invert/capsize, which then becomes the identical twin of the first knot, just with shorter tails. After enough of these events there are no tails left and the knot fails. Leaving at least a foot of tail is recommended. I spent a few hours yesterday in my front yard with a come-a-long and a load cell to try to get some decent information on this. The results still leave room for plenty of argument. People who don't like the figure eight will say, "See, it slips at really low loads!" People who do like it will say, "See, if you dress it right, pretension it well, and leave long tails, it doesn't fail. Besides, I've been using it for years and I'm still alive!" If you're too impatient to wade through the results below, the short answer is that if you do all those things, you should be ok. My question is - why would you take the chance? If you're in a situation where a stuck rope would be catastrophic, use the overhand. It has all the same advantages and not nearly as much risk. Be safe - the body we have to scape off the rock may be yours. - Tom Moyer Salt Lake County Search and Rescue Rope A: Mammut 11 mm static - used Rope B: Unknown manufacturer red 11 mm dynamic - used Rope C: ABC/Sterling 11 mm static - new Rope D: Blue Water II+ 11 mm static - new Rope E: ABC 8mm static - new Rope F: 1" Tubular Webbing Test #1: RopeA/RopeA - figure 8 - well dressed and pretensioned Capsized at 750 lb, Rope broke at 2520 lb Test #2: RopeB/RopeB - figure 8 - well dressed and pretensioned Capsized at 590 lb, Capsized at 2280 lb, Rope broke at 2560 lb Test #3: RopeB/RopeB - figure 8 - well dressed, pretensioned loosely Capsized at 290 lb, Stopped Test at 2800 lb Test #4: RopeB/RopeB - figure 8 - sloppy, crossing strands and loose Capsized at 110 lb, Capsized at 140 lb, Capsized at 340 lb, Capsized at 420 lb, Capsized at 530 lb, Stopped Test at 2500 lb Test #5: RopeB/RopeB - overhand - well dressed and pretensioned Capsized at 1400 lb, Capsized at 1940 lb, Capsized at 1990 lb, Rope Broke at 2070 lb Test #6: RopeA/RopeA - overhand - well dressed and pretensioned Stopped Test at 2540 lb Test #7: RopeC/RopeC - figure 8 - well dressed and pretensioned Stopped Test at 2500 lb Test #8: RopeD/RopeD - figure 8 - well dressed and pretensioned Capsized at 2170 lb, Stopped Test at 2550 lb Test #9: RopeB(11mm)/RopeE(8mm) - figure 8 - well dressed and pretensioned Capsized at 1330 lb, Capsized at 1550 lb, 8mm broke at 2700 lb Test #10: RopeB/RopeB - figure 8 - well dressed and pretensioned - WET Capsized at 470 lb, Rope broke at 2790 lb Test #11: RopeB/RopeB - figure 8 - well dressed, pretensioned loosely - WET Capsized at 290 lb, Rope broke at 2470 lb Test 12: RopeF/RopeF (webbing) - well dressed and pretensioned Webbing broke at 2070 lb

Hey All: I ran across an accident report posted by an English climber who's partner fell to his death while rappelling in Zion. It sounds as though he's sharing his account of the accident in an effort to insure that it is not duplicated elsewhere. While he does not know for certain what caused his partner's death, it appears as though the double figure-eight knot that they had been using to join the ropes failed. Apparently this knot tends to invert (roll over itself and move closer to the end of the rope)quite readily when loaded. I don't use this knot myself for a number of reasons, but thought I'd share the account just in case there's anyone out there who does. It's rather long, but you can easily skip to the portions directly concerned with the accident if you wish to. I've posted the account below if you're interested in reading further: "On May 21st I was descending with my friend Ross from Spaceshot on the Leaning Wall. During the last abseil Ross fell to his death. Ross and I are from the UK and were on a trip visiting various crags in the US. There is a lot of stuff spinning around in my head as I write this, but my main thought is to let people know what (it seems) was the cause of this accident. The main factor in this has surprised a good number of the climbers I have talked to. I know there has been some discussion of this on the web already. Hopefully by telling the whole story - however irrelevant some of it might be - all of the various questions might be answered. I will try to reply to any questions where I can tell you something vaguely useful. %==== The long story [skip ahead for the facts] ====%% On Monday we climbed the first four pitches and returned to the ground, leaving ropes in place to jug the next day. All the anchors we used were fixed, except maybe for the one at the top of the first pitch. Pitch 1 is slightly grotty 5.6 climbing. Pitch 2 is a pretty nice 5.7 flake and ends at the left end of a large sandy ledge. We fixed a 60m rope ("the blue" 60mx10.5mm) to this anchor, having got beta saying this would just reach the ground. Pitch 3 is a mixed bag of sandy 5.5 and ends at the base of a huge smooth clean red wall, the stuff we came to do. We fixed "the green" (55mx10.5mm) to this anchor and chucked it back down to the sandy ledge (top of pitch 2). Pitch 4 is where it gets fun. I lead the pitch (C2 aid) and Ross followed, cleaning the gear. We fixed our 60m lead rope ("the yellow" 60mx10.5mm) to this anchor and abseiled down. Then down the green to the sandy ledge. Then down the blue (carefully checking it reached) back to the ground. It didn't quite reach the dirt, but left us with maybe 20ft of trivial down-shuffling to get back to our bags. We left the 3 ropes in place and headed off for a beer. Tuesday morning we jugged the ropes. Amongst all the other crap you take aid climbing, we had a 9mm rope. We planned to lead on the yellow (the top fixed rope) and take the 9mm to deal with the double-rope abseils on the descent. We would chuck the green down to the big sandy ledge as we went past it, and then could retrieve the green and the blue by jugging just the blue on Wednesday and abseiling down. I set off first, Ross followed. I got to the top of pitch 4 as Ross arrived at the top of pitch 3. Ross had got some two-way radios earlier on the trip and we chatted on the radio: the weather forecast had been slowly deteriorating for the last 3 days, today was 50% chance of afternoon rain, there were a lot of gloomy clouds brewing above us, the sandstone is all bad in the wet, we were not super fast aid climbers...there were a lot of reasons for continuing, mostly that I didn't want to have to lead that C2 pitch again!! A brief spot of rain actually hit us and we decided to bail. I pulled up the 9mm rope, tied it to the yellow, stripped the anchor and descended to the top of pitch 3. Meantime Ross had been untying the green from this anchor and getting ready to set up a double-rope abseil. I got down to him, chucked him the end of the yellow to tie to the green and started pulling the ropes down from above. Ross headed off down to the big sandy ledge as I coiled the 9mm and put it on my back. He radioed me to say "rope free" and I headed down. I arrived on the big sandy ledge about 10-15ft away from the anchor - Ross was off to my left, already clipped into the anchor and sorting out the blue rope, ready to set up the last abseil. I chucked the loose end of the yellow to Ross and started pulling the ropes from above. I was unclipped at this point - being a very bad boy, even though it was a huge ledge. This was actually the only thing that struck me as unsafe about our whole day. As the knot came down, I stopped and untied it to free the yellow, which was now all tangled up in plants and rocks on the ledge. Ross fed it over the edge as I untangled it from everything on the ledge. I started pulling the green down as Ross sorted himself out over at the anchor. I was coiling the green rope as Ross called over to say "see you at the bottom in a few minutes", he saw me coiling the green and offered to carry it, since I had the 9mm already on my back, but he already had our daysack on so I said I was fine taking it down. I turned to just finish up coiling the green and at that moment he fell. I rushed over and there was nothing there - our ropes had gone, Ross had gone, the anchor was fine, untouched. Everything floated for a moment, slipped sideways and turned unreal - then I started shouting...I knew I had to get down in case by some impossible chance there was something I could do to help him. I was yelling down to the road and got someone's attention, they flagged down one of the shuttle buses and shouted that help was coming. I had the 55m green and the 50mx9mm ropes with me. I couldn't get to the ground in one go but I knew there was another anchor (top of the Alpine Start for those that know it) that I would be able to reach. I set up the double rope abseil and set off down. The ropes tangled around everything - it was a complete shambles. I saw the rangers and the ambulance arrive; the rangers were racing up the hill to Ross. I set up the second abseil, it was all taking so long...as I reached the ground one of the rangers came over to tell me what I already knew. %%==== Some stuff that I do know ====%% Ross was found with the two ropes correctly through his belay device.The ropes extended about 10feet "above" him (the other 190feet being "below" his belay device) and the ends were not tied together. Throughout this trip we had always been tying ropes together using a fig-eight knot (more below). The only other abseil Ross set up that same day (from top of pitch 3 down to the big ledge) he had used the fig-eight knot with no back up knot on the tails. The knot was neat, I don't remember exactly how long the tails were but they didn't cause me a second glance. I could not see exactly what Ross was setting up on that last abseil - he was 10ft or so to my left and was sitting (while clipped in) so that he obscured my view of the anchor. The fig-eight I refer to is tied as follows: The two ends you want to join are held parallel with the ends "pointing" in the same direction. You grab both ropes together and then tie a regular single fig-eight knot in both ropes at once. What we did NOT use: The only other way that might be confused is when you have the ends pointing in opposite directions. Tie a single fig-eight in one rope then follow this through with the other rope - we did NOT do this. %%==== The important bit ====%% Some guys that were helping me out played around in their yard with this fig-eight method, tying it and trying to pull the knot apart. They found some worrying things. -The way the ropes pull on this knot on a double-rope abseil deforms the knot badly. -If the knot is not perfectly "dressed", in particular if there is a single slack loop anywhere on the fig-eight, they could pull the knot through even with 6 INCHES of tails, just pulling the ropes apart as happens naturally on an abseil. 6 inches of tails is NOT ENOUGH. If you use this knot, tie a back up knot and leave LONG tails. It scares me to think that I could have innocently/ignorantly made this same catastrophic mistake. %%==== My thoughts (not facts) ====%% The only plausible explanation of this accident I have come up with is that the knot slipped off the ends. I won't go through all the alternate scenarios and my objections to them here. I hope it doesn't sound contradictory to say that Ross was a safe climber. I never saw him rig a belay that I thought was unsafe, never saw him do anything that made me think "does he realise that's pretty dodgy". We were not in a big rush getting down. We were moving quickly and efficiently but with no sense of panic or anything like that. Ross knew that the last abseil was a long one and we would be a bit tight on rope. I can imagine that would make him want to keep the knot pretty near the ends, but I do not believe he would only leave something ridiculous like one inch of tails. I think he must have tied the knot with something like 6inches of tails, thinking this was plenty (go tie the knot - it looks good with this much rope sticking out of it) and maybe he didn't make it all neat and snug. I think when he set off he was happy with his set-up, not thinking at all that the tails were dangerously short. The first 30feet of this abseil are a little slabby - and with two 60m ropes you do have to feed armfuls through your belay device at the top - the first few feet of such an abseil are always a bit jerky. I guess he fed through a couple of armfuls of rope and hence bounced the knot just a couple of times, which caused it to fail. While I will never know for sure what happened, I do know what any of you can prove to yourselves - that you can get this knot to fail even with 6 inches of tails. I did not know that the necessary margin for safety was so wide for this knot, I am sure Ross did not realise this either. The ropes involved (the blue and yellow) have been sent to one of the testing guys at Black Diamond who is going to run some relevant tests involving this fig-eight knot. I will post anything they find that might be of interest. %%==== Last words ====%% Thoughts of Ross are vividly etched in the minds of almost everyone he met. We miss him terribly. The only other thing I want to say here is that the Rangers at Zion were incredible; the way they dealt with the incident, the diligence of their investigation and the compassion that they showed me...I have only praise for everything they did. I was overwhelmed by the generosity of so many other people in Springdale - it's a small town of wonderful people. Despite everything, I have some very fond memories of Zion and the people I met. It is a beautiful place - you should go there and climb those amazing walls. rc"

Oops. Looks like a double post. Check out the same thread above if you're interested. [ 06-17-2002, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: JayB ]

Hey SR: Based on what we encountered at the base of Glacier I'd say expect a foot of new, if not more at elevations at 5500' and above. There was a moderate but steady wind Friday night while most of the snow was coming down, which may have added a bit of wind-loading to the lee slopes during the evening. The temps seemed to be getting progressively warmer, and the snow wetter through early afternoon on Saturday. With all of the warm temps and sunshine that we're seeing today, I suspect that most of the slide prone slopes will have released by this afternoon, as there was already some minor slide activity, and quite a bit of sluffing off of rock faces by mid-morning on Saturday. Having said all of that, my hunch is that everything should be in prime shape by early Tuesday morning if the weather holds. All in all I think that Michael Layton was right on in his assesment of the situtation. Lot's o' new snow atop a base of frozen spring snow with a serious warming trend on the way spells bad news. Hopefully the fates have taken the weekend off....

Unfortunately the TR in this posting is short for "Trail Report" rather than "Trip Report" as the conditions up high did not bode well for an ascent. By the time we decided to leave our high camp at the crest of Kennedy Ridge on Saturday afternoon, the slopes at 5500' were loaded with at least a foot of new snow (conveniently positioned atop icy spring snow for avalanche fans)with more on the way. We were relucant to leave after the 10 mile approach the previous day, but it just didn't seem as though the avalanche conditions would abate enough for us to consider a climb this weekend. For those interested in the conditions on the approach, read on.... -Intermittent snow on the trail between 3-4 miles. -Trail almost completely covered by the time the trail nears the Kennedy Hot springs. -Snow level as low as 4200' this weekend, with accumulations on the order of 1' or more above 5000' feet. If it warms up for the next couple of days the route should be in perfect shape. If you're heading out there, enjoy! [ 06-09-2002, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: JayB ]

I've got many years to go before I have to grapple with this one, I think. But know of at least one four step program that worked for me. It involves the following: 1. Get injured and take a forced vacation from climbing for several months. 2. Get worked on all of the routes that you used to hike. 3. Reclaim your sense of accomplishment when your climbing has returned to its former standard. 4. Repeat as necessary.

http://www.climbing.com/Pages/Techtip_pages/195/images/TT-195-trad-fig03.html

Well - I guess I should have searched first. Found a TR from Loren & Philfort for the standard route - sounds like an epic. Nicely done. It also sounds as though there's a closure somewhere on the access road? Any more info on the state of the road and/or the routes themselves (especially) would still be appreciated. If I can get close enough by car I may head up there and bushwack to the base of the West Peak to take a look later on this week. It's supposedly a grade III 5.5 but reading Phil and Loren's TR seriously makes me wonder...

I don't know how I managed to overlook this series of peaks for so long, but while driving east on I-90 today I noticed a series of rocky peaks with some fairly massive slabs beneath them. As soon as I got home I opened up the atlas and the Beckey guide and identified the formation as Mt. Garfield. Anyhow, after reading through Beckey's description of the mountain as a "hazardous enigma" and taking a look at the routes in the book I couldn't help but wonder why I had never heard anyone mention the peaks before. Seems like a series of peaks with fifth class alpine routes ranging between a grade III 5.5 (West Peak) and a grade V 5.11 that aren't too much further away from Seattle than Mt. Si should at least come up in conversations or on this board once in a while. So what's the deal? It looks like a combination of loose rock and tough routefinding could well account for some of Garfield's lack of popularity, but is the rock THAT loose and the approach/descent THAT heinous? Just curious. Anyone been up there out there and taken a look for themselves and/or hit one of the routes? If so, please share some info and shed some light on the enigma of Mt. Garfield. [ 05-27-2002, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: JayB ]

Fair enough. Statement in the declarative rather than interrogative tense and more weeny-speak coming up: The 8.2kN figure is the maximum force (the impact force) that the rope will generate when holding a climbers fall rather than the maximum tensile strength of the rope. The UIAA and EN regs require a dynamic rope to have an impact force of less than 12kN when holding a factor two fall with an 80kg load in an attempt to limit the forces on the climber, pro, etc. Not sure what the maximum tensile load a typical climbing rope can handle is, but in most high-load falls I've read about it's always been the biners, gear, or runner that fails rather than the rope. Most biners I've seen have a rating between 18 and 25 kN so I'm thinking that the maximum strength of the rope must be at least that high or higher.

[ 05-24-2002, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: JayB ]

quote: Originally posted by Bronco: If that's true, what is the logic behind the tech tables in my latest BD catalog? Strongest rope is their 9.4 stinger II at 8.2kN Isn't that 8.2kN rating the maximum force that the rope will exert on the system during a fall rather than the maximum tensile strength of the rope?

I've never climbed with a daisy chain and can't recall ever roping-up with anyone who uses them as the stuff I've already got seems to do the job. I do use the clove hitch-though when ice climbing with double ropes - one hitch to a locker on each screw unless the conditions warrant tying into something more complicated. And in my contribution to thread creep/weenyhood... I think that Charlie Fowler probably speaks with authority on any topic related to climbing, but I can swear that I heard that the AMGA was actually in favor of their use as their strength is sufficient for the application and, as an added bonus, they can be adjusted without dismantling the anchor. I've also heard that on a clove hitch in which the non-loading end is attached to something (a harness, for example) and loosens under load it'll eventually cinch-down again when the tension betwenn the loading end and your harness is sufficient. Could be complete crap but that's what I heard and it seems to make sense. Couldn't find anything more substantial out there, but did find this info on Tom Moyer's web-site. I'm not sure what his qualifications are, but here's his site http://www.xmission.com/%7Etmoyer/testing/ and one result of pull-testing a clove hitch to failure: "11/23 Test #6 Pull a clove hitch to failure. The clove hitch was tied around the shackle on the load cell. The other end of the rope was tied with a figure eight on a bight. New 11 mm Blue Water Rope was used. Result: Material failure at the clove hitch at 5110 lbs. Discussion: The clove hitch did not slip! We were all very surprised at this. Before drawing any further conclusions, I would like to test this again - on a carabiner instead of the shackle. I suspect the rough surface of the shackle added extra friction to the knot."

More Of The Same... Boulder outdoor magazines are sold By Matt Branaugh Camera Business Writer Rock & Ice and Trail Runner, two Boulder-based magazines owned by North South Publications, got sold and shipped out of town this week. Duane Raleigh and Quent Williams bought the outdoor-oriented periodicals through Big Stone Publications, a venture they recently formed for the transaction. Terms of the deal, which closed Wednesday, weren't disclosed. Raleigh left his post as editor and publisher of the well-known Climbing Magazine three weeks ago. "Owning a magazine is something I always wanted to do since entering publishing in the late 1980s," Raleigh said. "I missed out on some opportunities, so when the Rock & Ice opportunity came up, I had to. I had an excellent job at Climbing and liked it, but I wanted to do this anyway." Both magazines' assets were moved this week to Carbondale, a town just south of Glenwood Springs, where Raleigh plans to set up shop and go after the publication he once led. Carbondale, an area Raleigh believes draws talented writers, ad representatives and climbing enthusiasts, is also home to the 32-year-old Climbing. Raleigh said the move was needed because Boulder is too expensive for employers and employees. The upcoming issues of both publications produced by North South will still go out to subscribers, and should hit newsstands at such places as Boulder Bookstore and King Soopers in the next few weeks. The fate of the 16 employees at North South is clouded. Raleigh said he'll consider those workers for jobs if they apply. His goals include bumping up the frequency of Rock & Ice — a climbing magazine that prints eight times a year — and growing its circulation from the current 32,500 issues closer to Climbing's 50,000 issues within two years. He hopes to double Trail Runner's circulation from the current 13,000 paid subscriptions this year, and hopes to double it again the next year, he said. He said he plans on adding more coverage in both magazines that relates to equipment, gear and training. Dougald MacDonald, who was North South's publisher and a minority owner, also edited the 18-year-old Rock & Ice. He said Friday he doesn't expect to catch on with the new ownership. When the possibility of a sale sprung up this spring, MacDonald said he opposed the idea. But, as one of eight owners, he said he found himself outnumbered. "I liked what I was doing," he said. "It is hard to sell out to a competitor." He expects to see circulation grow for both Trail Runner and Rock & Ice, but more so for the former. He conceded North South possessed limited capital that hindered its ability to grow either magazine. Brian Metzler, the editor and associate publisher of Trail Runner, said he may apply for a job at Big Stone. The move is sad for the Boulder community, he said, but a step forward for the 3-year-old periodical. "I think it's going to be a good move for Trail Runner magazine, in that it will allow the magazine to grow and thrive," he said. Camera Business Writer Matt Branaugh can be reached at (303) 473-1363 or branaughm@thedailycamera.com. May 18, 2002

"Rock and Ice magazine based in Boulder, Colorado has been sold. For the last five years Dougald MacDonald has been at helm of this increasingly glossy and successful climbing magazine. MacDonald and a group of investors bought the magazine off George Bracksiack, the magazines founder. The buyers? None other than Duane Raleigh, the publisher and Quent Williams the production manager of the Carbondale (Colorado) based Climbing magazine. Both Raleigh and Williams recently resigned from Climbing magazine. The new Rock and Ice magazine will be based in Carbondale, opposite the offices of Climbing magazine and it looks like there will be an exodus of Climbing magazine staff across the road to join their old boss, Duanne Raleigh . The first defection was Tyler Stableford, Climbing's photo-editor who will now be the editor at Rock and Ice. Unfortunately most of the staff at the old Rock and Ice are now unemployed, and the future of Climbing magazine, once owned by climber Michael Kennedy but now owned by the media-giant PrimeMedia is assured, but a little murky." Mick Ryan

Veteran Climber Mike Bearzi Said to Have Perished in Tibet Brian Handwerk for National Geographic News May 15, 2002 Veteran climber Mike Bearzi reportedly fell to his death sometime last week, during an attempt on the unclimbed northeast face of Tibet's remote Gyachung Kang. "The information we have so far is a bit sketchy," said James Balog, a close friend and frequent climbing partner who traveled with Bearzi last year to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for National Geographic Adventure (Expedition to ANWR," November/December 2001). "It's based on a single call from Bruce, who reached a mutual friend in Colorado on Sunday night" Bearzi and climbing partner Bruce Miller were in Tibet to make the first attempt at climbing the remote, northeast face of Gyachung Kang. The towering peak is difficult by any route and is rarely visited. At approximately 26,000 feet (7,952 meters), it's thought to be the 15th highest mountain in the world. Although details are sketchy, the accident occurred while the two climbers were descending a ridge during an acclimatization climb near their base camp. Coming down on relatively easy ground, Bearzi apparently slipped on some snow or ice, and took a very long fall off the ridge. Because of the area's challenging terrain, it took Miller a day and a half to reach a position where he could even view the body with binoculars and confirm that Bearzi had died. Miller then hiked four days to reach Everest Base camp, the nearest location with a telephone. Climbing Alpine Style "Mike had seen Gyachung Kang during an acclimatization hike for one of his Everest climbs," Balog said. "He became really excited about climbing this giant, deep in the more remote reaches of the Himalayan wilderness." The climb, said Balog, epitomized much of what drew Bearzi to mountaineering. "Light, small, focused, and very bold—that's what Mike really enjoyed. He had become disenchanted with large, expedition-style alpinism, and felt it was becoming too commercialized by media and sponsorships. He cherished the aesthetic purity of guys just getting out there and doing climbs." Bearzi and Miller planned to climb the massive 6,000-foot (1,800-meter) rock-and-ice northeast face of the mountain "alpine style," without a support team, fixed camps, or oxygen. The attempt had a scientific component. Mountains hitting the 8000-meter mark are especially coveted by climbers, and there has been speculation that Gyachung Kang might be a "lost" 8000-meter peak. Bearzi and Miller carried a handheld GPS unit, in the hope of reaching the summit and pinpointing the Himalayan giant's true height. The ambitious project attracted much attention in the alpine community, and was supported by the American Alpine Club's Lyman Spitzer grant, a Mugs Stump Grant, and a Polartec Challenge Grant. Part of the reason the climb drew so much support is that it "represented a level of adventurous spirit beyond what most other U.S. expeditions have had in quite some time," said Balog. Mixed Climb Pioneer Bearzi was an accomplished alpinist whose distinguished resume included the first alpine-style free ascent of Patagonia's Cerro Torre, and an attempt on the North Ridge of K2, which was featured on National Geographic Explorer. He had been on Everest three times, including two alpine-style attempts on its treacherous North Face. In the 1980s and early 90s, he helped pioneer mixed climbing, and claimed many first ascents of mixed winter routes in Rocky Mountain National Park. He was instrumental in the invention of the "M system," which has become a widely used standard for ranking the difficulty of mixed climbs. The 49-year-old Bearzi lived in Boulder, Colorado, with his wife Reneé St. Aubin. During off-climbing times, he worked as a carpenter to finance his passion for the mountains. He will be remembered most of all as a man whose love for the outdoors was a driving passion. "Most of the guys I've encountered who are performing at a high level aren't out there for the pure love of the space," said Balog. "They're out there for the technical exercise, and other reasons, but sometimes they're lacking an aesthetic and spiritual love of the place. Mike just loved being out there, enjoying the wild. He could have just as much fun doing a casual climb on the Flatirons near Boulder, on a summer morning, as he could pushing toward the summit of an 8,000 meter peak. That really strikes at the essence of what kind of person he was." [ 05-17-2002, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: JayB ]

Hey Sayjay: I'm with you on the color coding idea. I probably didn't explain that idea clearly enough, but what I meant to suggest was a donor vs. non-donor scheme so you could see which of the frequent posters had made a contribution and who had not - rather than a scheme that told you how much someone had contributed. That would clearly be lame as everyone's circumstances are different. Having said that though, I do think that setting a $5 minumum on contributions or something in that range would be appropriate as odds are that if you're online you can handle shelling out the 5 bucks, and anything less than that might be more of a hassle to collect and deposit than it's worth.

I'll share a couple of ideas that came to mind agter reading through this thread. While I think that while Will's sentiments concering donations are largely correct, there are measures that can be taken to encourage them. The first is recognition. While it'd be nice to think that everyone would donate just as much money regardless of whether or not they'd been recognized for it, that's rarely the case in practice. It'd be up to you guys to determine how to go about doing that, but one idea would be to recognize those who had kicked in a donation to keep the site going by simply changing their name on the "Who's Online" board to a different color. Not only will the donor's be recognized, but I imagine the folks who have paid up would direct some healthy spray to the heavy users who hadn't chipped in. Another means of encouraging donations which might also enhance the feeling of community by users of this site is sharing some data about the costs you incur to run it and the quantity of dough you'd like to see come in to help offset them. Perhaps you could even list this data in a separate forum, and have something like a PBS Pledge Drive type display measuring the progress that the community was making towards covering the site's expenses. E.g. "We're 10% away from covering the cost of our server this quarter." While some might object to these measures for a variety of reasons, I think that they'd only enhance the site because anyone who invests in this site will want to take care of it and see it thrive. And it would provide those who claim to value the site a chance to put their money where there mouth is. Just a couple of ideas, and thanks again for keeping this site going in the meantime.