JayB

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=965718Follow up the earlier article on Lomborg and the SA piece, for anyone interested.

quote: Originally posted by Dru: Hey, that "Lomborg book", the Skeptical Environmentalist, gets a 40 + page rebuttal as a Special Feature in the January "Scientific American..." Thanks for the heads up. I get SA also. I'll have to read through it and see who makes the stronger case...

quote: Originally posted by CleeshterFeeshter: You want a Ranger story!I was downclimbing one of the narrow chutes/boulder fields that gain the bottom of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison (almost directly below the Painted Wall) . My goal was to fish the Gunnison river as the area thru the Canyon is truly a Blue Ribbon trout stream. I descended to the bottom and (end of May 1987 after spring semester classes were out) saw a single nekid lovely female sun bathing on a rock - The bottom of the canyon is so narrow that I had to go into the river as not to intrude on her "space"-Oh well. SHe saw me and put on her NPS Ranger Garb- We spoke and I fished nearby after apologizing for interrupting- Moral-I spent a week in Crusty Butte,CO hanging out at her place (she was a seasonal NPS employee)and banging our brains out- I love Female Rangers. You need to quit ragging on these guvment people(unless you are from Norf Idaho) I, too have a story to tell about hot female rangers and the Black Canyon of the Gunnison, circa 1999. My Best friend and I had descended to the bottom of the Black Canyon to do some fly-fishing as well. Unfortunately the reels got left in the truck, and after much recrimintation and slander passed between us, we spent the next couple of hours watching some awfully smug looking football sized trout cruise past us on their way to engulfing the next salmonfly that drifted past. After being taunted like this for a the better part of the afternoon we headed back up to the rim of the canyon. The route back to the top consisted of several interwoven gullies, and after I got quite a ways ahead of Matt, I decided I'd climb up on one of the ridges separating the gullies in order to spot him down below. After taking a moment to scan the impressive vista beneath me, I turned my attention to the boulders and knarled pines surrounding me. Of particular interest was the large brown boulder about 50 feet to my left. The entire thing looked to be covered with a dense coating of moss, unlike any of the other rocks in the vicinity. Curious, I squinted in an effort to get my somewhat out of date contacts to focus. As I was focusing I saw a sort of peristaltic wave course beneath the moss. Then the boulder began to rock back and forth for a bit, and eventually it stood up, planted its feet on a nearby rock, and began waving its nose back and forth in the air. It was by far the biggest bear I'd ever seen in my life. Thankfully the wind was working in my favor, the bear turned it's attention to some blueberry bushes a few feet away, and I was able to scramble behind and eventually up a nearby outcrop. After about 50 feet of low 5th class climing I figured I was safely out of the bear's onsight range (maybe he could have done it after rehearsing on a top rope)and began to turn my attention to Matt. Knowing our luck I was dead certain he'd cruise through the overgrowth (undergrowth that's more than head high) and right into this bear's favorite berry patch. Eventually I saw a disturbance in the bushes working its way up the gully, thankfully to the right of the one the bear's favorite buffet line. After a minute or two the disturbance was within whispering range, and I saw Matt's head pop out of the underbrush. Matt paused when I gave the obligatory "Pssst!" and scanned his surroundings with a quizzical and somewhat annoyed look on his face. Matt was in a hurry to get back to the top and return to the book he had been reading for the past couple of days, entitled "Mark of the Grizzly: True Stories of Recent Bear Attacks and the Hard Lessons Learned." I naturally did not want to say anything that would unduly alarm Matt, ensconced as he was in a dense thicket of undergbrush with his visibility limited to a few feet. After 0.2 seconds of careful deliberation I followed my "Pssst!" with the word "Bear!" in my best alarm whisper. He froze in mid-stride, leaving one foot aloft for fear of clueing the nearby Grizzly to his presence with so much as another footfall, and turned to me slowly with mouth agape and the eyes of a man peering into the very jaws of hell. What could I whisper that would let him know that this was not really a grizzly that we were dealing with, just a huge-ass black bear, and that it wasn't really lying in wait just a few strides away, but over the ridge about 150 feet away and sublimely ignorant of and/or indifferent to our presence, lolling about in a bear's paradise of sunshine and blueberries? I know...how about hissing the word "Bear!" once more, and just a bit louder - that should do it. I looked on as he stood there, with one foot still perched above the ground, in a stance roughly akin to the Karate Kid's crane stance, visually scrolling through the compendium of maulings and dismemberment contained within "Mark of the Grizzly" at the speed of light. Clearly he had the wrong idea. After a second or two of careful deliberation I followed up with "No dude - not by you, over the ridge. Come up here and check it out." The tension spilled from his body like hydrogen out of the Hindenburg and he slumped out of the crane stance. Within a second of his first exhalation in nearly half a minute, his relief was rapidly supplanted by a Vessuvian rage, but thankfully for me he had to contain it for fear of alerting the bear to our hitherto innocuous presence. After watching the bear have its way with a series of unsuspecting blueberry bushes we made our way to the top. The exertion seemed to have a soothing effect on Matt, and we were laughing about the whole thing by the time we checked into the ranger station to let them know about the bear. Most female rangers I've run into have had the both the looks and the demeanor of an Eastern Block librarian, but as we approached the desk we were nearly levelled by the site of one of the most beautiful women ever to grace a NPS uniform. This was the holy grail that millions of deluded young men naively scour the wilderness for every year. A woman who LIKES being outside in the elements, who will accompany you through all of the travails of the wilderness and will look damned good doing it. Even more astonishing was the fact that the girl next to her seemed to be cast from the same mould. For a moment or two I succeeded in deluding myself into thinking that my newfangled bear story might give me some sort of cachet not posessed by the average dirty, unshaven dude who rolls into the canyon for the weekend. She was excited to hear about the bear, actually, and we had a nice chat about geology and whatnot, but after exhausting these topics it was clear that I was loosing traction and should once again resign myself to my fate, head for the door, repeat Jerry Roach's dictum that "Surfer girl isn't in the mountains." until the symptoms passed and make the long drive home

quote: Originally posted by todd: ...so basically, if youre not always climbing top-notch routes (if youre usually on 3's and 4's), the rambocomps will actually climb worse than almost any other crampon out there, as you can pretty much forget about french technique, low-angle descents, etc. go with the m10's. No disrespect to Todd here, but I must rise in defense of the Rambocomps and disagree on this one. I just switched from the BD Swithblades (which I nominate for the worst crampons on the market, be they in mono, trident, or dual configurations) to the Rambocomps, and had I known what I was missing I would have donated an organ or two to pay for the upgrade earlier. I doubt if I'll ever climb any high-end routes, and spend virtually all of my time on 3's and easy 4's and they work like a dream, especially when the ice is convoluted or chandeliered. The flared secondary points really engage well, and in conjunction with the monopoint, stabilize your foot like a tripod. As far as french technique and other variations on low angle technique go, I don't use them much on 3's and 4's, except to cop a rest every now and then, and the RC's are far superior to the BD's for this purpose (the secondary points angled towards the back really help for this also). And, while these are definitely waterfall crampons, I've actually found them to give me much better purchase than my old Switchblades on the low angle stuff - I've never noticed or been concerned about the relative scarcity of secondary points on the rear of the crampon. So, anyhow, the moral of the story is that if they can make it easier for a hack like myself to get up the 3's and 4's, they should be able to give anyone's climbing a boost.

I'll second the "Guns, Germs, and Steel" recommendation (Pulitzer Prize winner for non-fiction in 1998 or so. The conclusions that the author, Jared Diamond makes will likely prove dissapointing to folks on either end of the ideological spectrum. Diamond dedicates a few hundred pages to proving that... If you are a people who inhabit a region which supports very few productive cereal crops, has very few animals amenable to domestication, is geographically remote from other population centers and you don't trade much, and have been exposed to very few epidemic diseases in the course of your collective history (amongst other things) - the odds of you're being conquered are considerably higher than your beeing the conqueror. Good read. BTW, The Economist magazine recently included a feature on Lomborg's book. The review was generally favorable. If anything, The Economist is a liberal (in the classical sense - think Jefferson if Classical liberalism is a foreign concept and you're getting warmer. If the term liberal conjures up images of statist socialism you're getting colder...)magazine with a perspective that usually places it a degree or two to the left of the US on environmental issues (That's usually where I end up myself most of the time, but not all of the time). They came out in favor of the Kyoto Accord and its ilk, for example. As commited liberal thinkers, however, they tend to listen when they hear a a persuasive argument to be found on the other side. Here's part of what they had to say. Environmentalists tend to believe that, ecologically speaking, things are getting worse and worse. Bjorn Lomborg, once deep green himself, argues that they are wrong in almost every particular ECOLOGY and economics should push in the same direction. After all, the “eco” part of each word derives from the Greek word for “home”, and the protagonists of both claim to have humanity's welfare as their goal. Yet environmentalists and economists are often at loggerheads. For economists, the world seems to be getting better. For many environmentalists, it seems to be getting worse. These environmentalists, led by such veterans as Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, and Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute, have developed a sort of “litany” of four big environmental fears: • Natural resources are running out. • The population is ever growing, leaving less and less to eat. • Species are becoming extinct in vast numbers: forests are disappearing and fish stocks are collapsing. • The planet's air and water are becoming ever more polluted. Human activity is thus defiling the earth, and humanity may end up killing itself in the process. The “litany” of environmental fears is not backed up by evidence The trouble is, the evidence does not back up this litany. First, energy and other natural resources have become more abundant, not less so since the Club of Rome published “The Limits to Growth” in 1972. Second, more food is now produced per head of the world's population than at any time in history. Fewer people are starving. Third, although species are indeed becoming extinct, only about 0.7% of them are expected to disappear in the next 50 years, not 25-50%, as has so often been predicted. And finally, most forms of environmental pollution either appear to have been exaggerated, or are transient—associated with the early phases of industrialisation and therefore best cured not by restricting economic growth, but by accelerating it. One form of pollution—the release of greenhouse gases that causes global warming—does appear to be a long-term phenomenon, but its total impact is unlikely to pose a devastating problem for the future of humanity. A bigger problem may well turn out to be an inappropriate response to it. Read the rest of the article and/or the book and see what you think. The rest of the article can be found here: www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=718860 Might be worth a read regardless of where you are coming from on the environmental front. Cheers,

Random Anecdote Tangentially Related to Kitty Theme: While riding the lift at Winter Park a couple of weeks ago. I met an exchange student who's father runs a hotel near the Torres Del Paine in Patagonia. Apparently he climbs a lot back home and was looking forward to getting out and climbing with Jay Smith, who apparently became good friends with his Dad after spending a few seasons down there, but hasn't been able to find him since arriving. Maybe the fact that he's been sentenced to a year-long stint in Omaha has something to do with it. After learning my first name he went on to ask if I knew Jay Smith and or climbed with him. Must have been quite dissapointed when I informed him that the only thing that we have in common as far as are climbing is concerned is our name. I went on to tell him that the last time I heard Jay Smith's name mentioned it was in an article on Calaveras Dome in Climbing and that maybe the staff could pin down his location. If I had only known the truth, I could have sent him forth with the words "Find thee the Alpine Kitty, my lad, and yee shall find thee Jay Smith." Lame post but it's Friday and I'm running on fumes at this point...

quote: Originally posted by Dru:[QB] QB] Is that the Alpine Kitty?

Big Alpine Routes are hard for this guy (me) wherever he finds them. Most routes in Washington involve a greater vertical gain and require approaches in ranges with more rugged topography/bushwacking than most alpine routes in Colorado. The real ass kicker on most alpine routes in CO is the altitude which, on the high peaks, is tough to deal with no matter how long you've lived here. I also think that the temps that you run into in Alpine terrain out here tend to run a few degrees colder than in the PNW. That's one thing that I'm looking forward to leaving behind once I return to the PNW (except on volcano climbs). It'll be nice to be up in alpine terrain at an elevation that's just a few hundred feet above the computer I'm sitting in front of now....

Review of Rambocomps from Climbing a While Back... Grivel Rambocomp(distributed by Climb High)$169.50, 37.2 ounces Summary: Simply put, the Rambcomp is the best steep-ice crampon tested. The curved, rigid frame directs the front points in toward the big toe, creating a more natural climbing stance for front-pointing, stemming, edging, etc. The rear-facing points under the ball of the foot come in handy for modified hooking and wrapping feet around pillars, and pulling across on traverses. The Rambocomp's curled toe bail is designed to reduce metal fatigue and to dampen the crampon's blow against the ice. We were unable to discern whether the bail contributed to the crampon's exceptional grip, or if it was the design of the front points themselves, but either way the Rambocomp was the stickiest model tested, actually gripping in the ice and giving added confidence on delicate terrain. Part of this may be due to the tiny, claw-like tertiary point on each side of the front points which, along with the splayed secondary points, gave great torsional stability. The security and curved design of this crampon changed the way I climb ice -- for the better. A test favorite. Available in mono- or dual-point versions. Pros: Front and secondary points face inward for a natural climbing stance, and gave the best purchase of any crampon tested. Rear-facing points under the ball of the foot allow for easy hooking, hip pulling, etc. Splayed secondary points give extra side-to-side stability when front-pointing. Cons: The tiny side points in back reduce the crampon's grip on the approach and mountaineering terrain. Price vs. performance value: A

Carloyn: Just a couple of crampon reviews from the mags if you're interested: http://www.rockandice.com/index.phtml?section=gear_show&content_id=175 http://www.climbing.com/Pages/equipment/equipment-207.html

I have yet to find the perfect ice-screw racking device, but the BD Ice Clipper has worked pretty well, provided you limit the load to 5 screws or so. I have noticed a tendency for the gate on the IC to pop out (so that the gate comes to rest on the outside of the biner)every once in a while though. I had this happen once and unloaded four screws at once while high-stepping and had to down-climb and start over. Not a big deal on this one pitch climb, but quite a bit more, err... "inconvenient" on a multi-pitch outing or a more commiting single pitch affair. My friend uses some sort of welded double bent-gate biner thing from Simond (?) which seems to work pretty well for him.

quote: Originally posted by chucK: JayB, In the first part of your above-quoted post you decry climbs where people can get hurt. In the second part you describe the joy you find in climbing such routes. If a mentally and physically challenging climb is established in an area that subsequently becomes popular, are those that enjoy the challenging nature of that climb required to suffer the loss of their climb to ensure the safety of the newcomer beginners? Chuck: I've enjoyed reading your posts and I think you've made some good points. Sorry if the points that I was trying to raise in my own weren't entirely clear. In the first half of my post I was just trying to say that R/X rated routes have their place. If they were established in that fashion as a result of necessity or out of respect for an ethic that prevails at a given crag I have no problem with them. Also, if the ethic at a particular crag evolves in a manner that stresses safety over boldness - the lines established in a different era should be left as they are. But I think that I fall into the same camp as Matt when it comes to new lines that are intentionally established as "Death Routes," to make a "statement" at popular crags where an entirely different ethic is the rule. In the second half of my post I was attempting to address the "Why do you lead sport climbs" question. The feelings I described weren't those that I encounter on R-rated stuff, but on typical sport routes. Maybe it's just me, but I encounter standard sport routes fairly often where the bolts are a bit too high to be considered safe, or where the position of the second bolt exposes the leader to groud-fall potential, or the fall will be especially long. I don't seek these lines out, but deal with them when I have to. Other poster's may feel that leading a sport route involves no more difficulty or commitment than TRing it, but I'll have to respectfully disagree with them on that one. On the rare occaisions that I intentionally venture onto an R-Rated route (2-3 times a year, tops) it's usually so far below my top leading ability, and I'm so mindful of the fact tha the consequences for panic are so high, that I'm usually quite a bit more collected on them than on sport routes that are at my limit. On sport routes I can push my limits without dying - and I sort of like that. So, in the end what it all comes down to is that while I respect the ethic and commitment behind R/X rated routes and would not want to deny climbers who seek them out the opportunity to do so, I don't think that all climbers should be forced to adopt that ethic if they wish to climb (lead) anything at all. I think there's room for both styles out there, and for those of us who aren't always looking for the same thing when we head to the crags - heady leads one day and safe climbs where the challenge is primarily physical the next. And Matt: Awesome post - I think you should publish it so that I wider audience can get the chance to read it. Great stuff.

Greetings, Insomniacs... Good comments from all. Just thought I'd chime in again on this one. One of the more common concerns that I hear voiced when old-schoolers (addressing someone as old-school is a compliment, BTW) talk about sport climbing is that somehow the ethic that permeates sport climbing will permeate and corrupt bastions of traditional purity - e.g. climbers reared in the cozy womb of the climbing gym will head out in droves and bolt the classic trad lines into submission. I understand the concern, but has this really been a significant problem? How many trad lines out there have been bolted other than DDD in the past few years? Maybe it's different out there, but it really hasn't been a problem out here in Colorado. If the old-school bolted routes in the Platte are suffering from anything, it's a lack of attention from climbers. Maybe if more folks climbed there we'd be rid of some of the 20 year old 1/4"ers that abound there. Since I've been out here I've only heard rumors about ONE crack being bolted in the entire region, and they were gone within days, or so I hear. Unfortunate, yes, but hardly indicative of a looming plague. And retrobolting run-out routes? Again - not a problem. People who dig-run out slab climbing frequent the area because that's the kind of climbing experience they're looking for, not because they want to diminish it. There's just not a lot of crossover between the type of people who would retrobolt a climb and the kind of people who frequent bastions of old-school ethics. Hell - even at Shelf which is about as likely to be retrobolted as any place in the country, where the term "Grid Bolting" may well have had its genesis - I've only heard of someone adding bolts to an existing climb on a single occaision. Anyhow, it seems like the basic dispute stems from an agreement about what sort of ethic should prevail in climbing. The fact of the matter is that we're never going to come to a consensus on that one and come up with a code that satisfies everyone. Nor should we. The last thing climbing needs is some sort of politburoesque Ethics Collective supervising the entire enterprise. The solution? Abide by the ethics that prevail at a particular crag. If I don't like the style of climbing found at a particular crag, I don't climb there. In a similar vein, bolters leave established trad areas alone, anti-bolters don't chop routes at established sport areas just because they object to the idea of bolts. Seems to work. It's not always that easy, of course. What about bolting a face at an established trad area that has no cracks or other features anywhere in the vicinity? Depends, I suppose. But Turkey Rocks is about as Trad as Trad gets - but there are still a few bolted routes that have survived. Apparently the locals have decided to leave them alone as long as the construcionists have kept them far away from existing lines and features that'll take pro. Seems like a workable solution to me. Whaddya think?

Good posts Matt/Chuck: Concerning the run-out issue – in my opinion it all depends on the context. Was the line bolted on lead during an era when long, dangerous run-outs were the rule? Fine. Is the line on a relatively remote formation where it will be climbed primarily by experienced folks who are seeking out that sort of experience. Fine again. Old-school and remote. Wonderful. I’ll head out there and climb the line when and if I’m ready for it. The only places where I think that run-out death routes are inappropriate are at crags frequented by large numbers of climbers and/or beginners. Boldness and commitment have their place but taking a piece of rock that could be enjoyed by a large number or climbers at a local crag and turning it into a mummified death-route is a bit selfish(IMO). To quote latch “Cool I was bold enough to do something dangerous but now I have created something that hardly anyone will want to do and is potentially dangerous.” I know it’s cool to be the hardman, diss a concern for safety as a crutch for the weak and the timid, and to invoke some sort of Darwinian sarcasm with regards to gumbies “If they can look at a climb and tell that it’s too hard for them, they deserve to (*&ing crater and die man.” Maybe, but I doubt anyone would be so glib at the base of the climb after someone has fallen and sustained a life threatening injury and/or been killed as the result of a simple mistake or minor oversight. In the end, a solid education and a respect for one’s limits are the best way to prevent injuries/death, but I for one think that it’s okay to have areas where beginners can learn to climb and lead where the penalties for a mistake are not quite so high. I doubt I’m the only one who can think back to their first leads and be thankful for the mistakes that they got away with. And, Chuck, you asked if there are people out there who enjoy leading sport routes that can be TR’ed. I’ll take the bait – I’m one of them. As far as the motivation for doing so is concerned, I think you were right on. Am I the only one? I doubt it. Anyone else care to come forward? I suspect that at least 75% of the people that post/lurk here clip bolts but don’t feel strongly enough about the issue to endure the inevitable flamefest to admit it. But I doubt that sport climbing is the only type of climbing that they do. If that was all I did maybe I’d be more reluctant to admit that amongst an audience that seems to respond to anyone who climbs for fun (ever) with such unrelenting hostility. But that’s not the case – I spend about 80% of my time on ice, trad, and alpine routes and consequently am not too worried about people dissing me because I clip bolts. Anyhow, not only do I clip bolts I very often get gripped when doing so ( I was sort of hoping that I wouldn’t after taking up trad/ice but unhappily, this has not been the case). If the first bolt is more than about 14 feet off the ground, it looks like I could ground out before clipping the second bolt, or it seems I’ll fall a long way and/or hit something on the ground I admit that my pulse races, my feet start twitching, and my palms begin to sweat and the fear that I fear forces a concentration and focus, and generates a set of rewards that I’ve never felt on TR – and that’s why I lead them. Sure there are quite a few bolted routes that you could TR with a bunch of slack but quite honestly that just seems silly and contrived to me. Anyhow, although I have a better understanding of where the folks who detest sport climbing are coming from - and I appreciate the fact that they’ve taken the time to do so – knowing how they feel is one thing, and changing what I climb because they do so is quite another. Any objective "Pro's" to clipping bolts on such climbs? None besides preference, I suppose, but that and the fact that I've never found the objections to putting bolts on routes that can't be protected with gear persuasive does the job for me. [ 01-24-2002: Message edited by: JayB ]

Hey Pope, Chuck, et Al: Thanks for taking the time to post a well considered response. I definitely have a better understanding of where you’re coming from after reading through what you’ve written – and that’s what I was looking for. While it’s not an ethic that I share, I have a certain admiration for those who adopt a strict code (be it vows of chastity, silence, or not clipping bolts) and have the integrity to stick to their guns, even if their example fails to persuade others to follow their lead. Perhaps there’s a compromise out there that everyone can live with For me that means honoring the ethics that prevail at a particular crag when I climb there. When I want to clip bolts and climb at my limit without risking serious injury I head to Shelf. Honest trad leads – the Platte or Eldo. Alpine – RMNP fits the bill. Old-school slab climbing? The Platte once again. Sick 150’ runouts above old ¼” star drive bolts? Well, to be honest I have yet to get the urge but when I do I know where to go. Wherever I climb I know what I’m getting into and modify my approach to climbing accordingly. Same deal with resort vs backcountry skiing. I ride lifts most of the time but when I head for the backcountry I know that I’m playing a different game and carry different equipment and a different mentality into the hills just like when I'm climbing. Anyhow, thanks for the posts.

Hey Fellas: I used to feel the same way and swore I'd never get on a board but - I tore my MCL last year early season and was left with a choice between eating the cost of a season pass, AND a 6 month spot in a condo in Frisco, CO (within 1/2 hour of A-Basin, Vail, Beaver Creek, Copper Mountain, Breckenridge, and Keystone) or bracing the hell out of my knee and hopping on a board until I was all healed up. I chose the board and got about 25 days in after staying off of the slopes for a couple of months. I'm still a skier at heart, and once the healing is complete (I re-injured my knee late season but kept riding) I'll probably ski 75% of the time. Having said that, however, I have to admit it's been very cool adding the board to my quiver of alpine tools. It's the first entirely new motor skill I've picked up since learning to juggle in the 5th grade, and I think it'll only help my skiing - riding through the steep bumps with style on a board it hands down the most difficult thing I've ever done on snow. Sooo - I'm still a loyal skiier, but if injury, want, or privation should compel you to pick up a board at some point, don't rule it out!

“This evening I was bored, so I logged in for useful information on ice conditions and lofty ethical discussions…” Pope. 01-21-01. Well, here you go… I don’t know how lofty the ensuing discussion will be, but after reading through some of the old posts on bolting I thought I’d present a scenario to folks who object to them, just to make sure I’m clear where they’re coming from. I’m not trying to “bait” anyone here or start a sprayfest, just get a more nuanced understanding of the logic and/or convictions that most objections to bolts are based upon. Most of those who object to bolts appear to do so for one of the following reasons: they are placed next to features that can be protected by traditional methods, they render the risks on a particular climb trivial and thus reduce it’s character, they violate the character of the first ascent (retrobolting), they limit the possibilities for future climbers who may be able to ascend the line without fixed protection, they could be top-roped, or because they damage the rock. There are quite a few climbs out there where one or more of the points listed above are reasonable objections to bolting, but I can think of quite a few where none of them seem to make much sense. All of the climbs on Big Rock Candy Mountain in the South Platte, for example, seem to fit into this category. These climbs start out with a mixture of slab/crack climbing and terminate in a series of low angle slab pitches with thought provoking (if not gut-wrenching) run outs between the ¼” bolts. Some pitches have only one or two bolts between the anchors, others pitches have bolts only at the anchors. All of the bolts on these climbs were installed on lead by straight-up-old-schooler hard-men like Pete Williams and Pete Gallager long before the advent of sport climbing. So, let’s return to the list of objections to bolts that I’ve stated above and see how well they apply to these routes. Can the hundreds of feet of slab be protected by traditional methods? Not by any that I’m aware of, and if they were I’m sure that the first ascentionists, being trad climbers themselves (as all climbers were at this point), would have made use of these features instead of taking the time and effort required to install bolts with a hand drill. Have they rendered the risks on the climbs trivial? Only if you consider constantly risking 100 to 300 foot flesh-grinding tumbles down coarse granite with 1,000 feet of climbing beneath you trivial – and how many of us would really feel that way if we were out there on the sharp end. As the bolts were put in by the first ascentionists, one can hardly accuse them of compromising their own style – which was bold by anyone’s standard. Do they limit the possibilities for climbers in the future? Only if one claims that climbers in the future will be clamoring for the opportunity to crank out 400 feet of free-solo friction climbing on top of the 1000 feet of climbing they’ve already logged for the day. Top-roping? Let’s be serious. Do they permanently modify the rock? Well, yeah – but come on. Do a few ¼” holes on an expanse of rock that that literally encompases hundreds of thousands, if not millions of square feet of granite really constitute “damage” in any honest sense of the word? Several times as much granite probably washes off of the face of the mountain during a hard summer rainstorm as the bolts displaced. If you oppose these routes out of dedication to a conservation ethic, that’s fine. But if never, ever modifying the rock in any fashion whatsoever while climbing is the standard that we have to meet in order to be ethically sound, we’ll all need to abandon the sport altogether. Ever break off a hold, hammer in a piton, scrape off a pebble with your feet? Anyhow, if you’re dead-set against bolts, what’s your take on these routes? Do you they pass your ethical scrutiny or fall short? If so, why? Is it really the bolts that you object to or is it the style of climbing, the mindset, and the sheer number of new climbers that their proliferation have lead to that you find objectionable. I’d be interested in hearing what you think. Pope/Dwayner…if you’re out there and suffering from insomnia have at it. P.S. Just including your names because you seem to be the most vocal/articulate defenders of The Faith that post here and it sounds like you have always practiced what you preach when it comes to bolts/bolting.

quote: Originally posted by z: Nobody is going to refute that washington kicks ass over colorado... ...except for the traffic and the weather. I've lived in both places for a while and those are two things that absolutely suck about (western)Washington.

quote: Originally posted by AlpineK: I lived there and there is good climbing, but PNW kicks COs butt anyday in my book. You should see what they call glaciers there. Dude - what are you talking about! The glaciers in the park are huge. I was on one just a couple of months ago and it was at least the size of a couple of football fields with a crevasse that was at least a couple of feet deep. You could really twist your ankle in that thing if you weren't careful! Seriously though - one thing about Colorado that really does suck is the lightning that plagues the entire state during summer afternoons, especially on the front range. It usually starts blasting away by 12:30 or so. This really sucks in the park, where it can snow until early July, and by which time the lightning has already started in a big way. About the only time you can climb the big stuff safely is a one or two week interval in mid-September when the lightning is tapering off and the odds of snowfall are relatively low. And as long as I'm on the topic, other things that suck are a twitchy continental snowpack, and the long intervals between powder days. The snow's great when it comes in, but the freshies are much more consistent in the PNW. Plus the terrain is better out there - nothing that compares to Crystal Mountain's Backcountry terrain or the stuff at Whistler/Blackcomb. Even the "legendary" back bowls at Vail are weak by comparison. The only area's where Colorado has a clear edge over the PNW are the sunshine and the ice. The fact that you're closer to Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico is a plus as well. Anyhow, my three year tour here will come to an end shortly so I'll have to resign my membership in the Colorado Booster's society before too long....

quote: Originally posted by trask: I have a pressing Colorado related question. Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that climbers from Colorado seem to be always pickin' and snipein' at the PNW climbers. What gives there anyway? They also seem to have a lot more tree sap stuck to their forearms. Am I wrong here? Examples?

Hey - anyone out there know any details about the "Ice Climbers Stole My Dog!" story that the guy by Michelmoon Falls is telling everyone. I've heard of access problems caused by noise, litter, etc but this is a first.

I’m with you on the whole property rights thing, Erik, but I thought that I’d go ahead and add some more information about the property in question. I'm certainly not advocating trespassing or otherwise violating property rights, but established precedents can and should be taken into account in situations like these. Sometimes there’s a longstanding agreement between landowners and climbers, and when it changes abruptly and without notice climbers can be caught off-guard. People have been accessing Gillete Falls in this manner for as long as people have been climbing ice in Colorado, and until now the property owners ( members of a private fishing club who own the property that the falls are accessed through, but probably not the falls themselves) have had a very good working relationship with climbers. The members of the fishing club rarely, if ever use the property in winter, and the deal has always been that as long as climbers remain quiet, considerate, and clean the access would remain open. Accordingly, that’s what Burns, who makes a point of informing climbers to remain off of climbs that are closed elsewhere, states in his book. Moreover, the property that the gun wielding fellow was on when he accosted the climbers belongs to the club, not him, but apparently to access the club’s land you must cross his – but I doubt that he pulls a gun on the men who belong to the club and their families when pass through his property every day during the summer. Have relations between climbers and the club deteriorated to the point that they’ve deputized this guy to defend their land – unlikely but perhaps they have. In that case a sign informing climbers of the situation at the entrance to the road and/or just asking the guys to leave and tell their friends not to climb their would have sufficed. Were the theatrics with the gun, deflating the tires, and the rest of the shit that went down necessary? I doubt it – I think I’ve met the guy who posted the note before and he was polite to a fault. The fact that he took the time to get the word out (on two separate message boards) and prevent other climbers from accessing the falls without the landowner’s consent seems to bear this out. Judging by the looks of the guy’s pad and property, the behavior of the dude with the gun resulted from a guy who hardly ever finds himself in a postion to exert authority on anyone confronted with a rare opportunity to do so and not being able to contain himself. If he was really interested in keeping people off of his land he’d post a sign and that would take care of it – but when the guy isn’t counting the teeth he has left, polishing the chrome on his camaro or cooking up a fresh batch of meth in his trailer, pulling a gun on people and chewing them out probably provides a welcome diversion from his usual routine, and bossing around the same people who he would normally have to greet in quite a different fashion if they were to meet elsewhere is probably too rare an opportunity for him to pass up. Anyhow – the point of my post wasn’t to berate landowners for enforcing their property rights (although I apparently lacked the self-control necessary to pass-up the opportunity to rip on an aggressive mullet), just to get some funny/interesting stories out of people who ran into trouble on the way to a climb when they weren’t expecting any. [ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: JayB ]

quote: Originally posted by pope: JayB, I know what you're trying to do here....trying to get me to engage in some of the petty squabling I've just condemned, trying to get me to degrade myself by trading insults with you in some kind of emotional bolting row. But I won't do it......YOU PIECE OF SHIT! Just kiddding. Good night. That was pretty good. Just checking to see if you were paying attention. But hey, I'm not such a bad guy! We're not so different, you and I - we must have something in common. Hmmmm....(stroking chin)....I wore WWII era wool pants for a long time before converting to Schoeller. I may even go back to them after hearing about the heroic knee-paste maneuver that they made possible. Actually, I just plugged in the word "Bolting" into the search function and dredged-up some of the old threads on the subject. After reading through all of your posts there I couldn't resist throwing that in. Good Night Yourself,

quote: Originally posted by pope: ...now I'm irritated. . Did someone place a bolt somewhere?

A variation on the theme of man-made objective hazards. Some friends of mine were quite nearly killed while descending a Couloir on Pikes Peak's north side when one of the guys on the road-crewstarted plowing ice/snow/rubble down it. The best part is this is supposedly still the customary practice up there. SKIERS ON PIKES PEAK FACE HIDDEN MAN-MADE DANGER ! When the spring skiing season begins in Colorado many skiers will be anxious to ski those steep couloirs and snowfields that were too risky during mid-winter. The risk of avalanche is more predictable and the highway opening up for the season makes them much more accessible. But when enthusiasts of the sport venture onto Pikes Peak they may encounter a deadly risk factor that is not presented by nature. Last spring (May 1999) four experienced mountaineers set out to descend the Cog Couloir (also know as the Railroad Couloir) from the summit of Pikes Peak. All of them were employees of the renowned mountaineering shop "The Mountain Chalet" in Colorado Springs. John and Ched were seasoned telemark skiers and climbers. Aaron and Lou were snowboarding and were guides for the "Pikes Peak Alpine School" where they led snow and ice climbing trips on the very terrain they were about to ride. They all wore helmets, avalanche beacons, and carried ice axes and shovels. Not only did they know how to use them but professionally trained others in the use of this equipment. The Cog Couloir begins just a bit down the northeast ridge from the summit and descends into the "Y" Couloir which begins from the summit itself and the parking lot there. It is about 45 degrees in steepness with maybe a 50 degree section. The group's timing was perfect for mother nature. It was between 11:00 and 12:00 when the snow had softened from the night's freeze but not so much that it was about to let loose. They began their run one at a time and then paused part of the way down where the Cog entered the "Y" Couloir. Fortunately they were all regrouped at this point and no one was skiing when they heard the roar of debris coming down from above. Instinctively they dove for what little cover they could find along the rocky sides of the couloir. Within seconds huge chunks of snow, rock and ice came careening down. Ricocheting like giant pinballs off the walls of the couloirs they sounded like cannonballs whistling by overhead in the air and thundering when they struck. After a minute that felt more like an eternity it all stopped and they dared to stand up and look around. Skiers and climbers try to avoid such exposure by planning their trips carefully around temperature, the time of year, the time of day, recent wind and storm history and previous experiences with the route. But all is not certain and sometimes you have to duck and pray when the "heavy artillery" starts pounding around you. The group thought that this was such a time. Maybe a cornice let loose. Maybe freeze-thaw conditions loosened a boulder. Maybe another skier they hadn't seen set it off from above. They cautiously prepared to finish skiing out into the "Y" Couloir when suddenly the roaring noise began again just as before. Again they dove for cover and again chunks of hardened snow and ice the size of television sets went whizzing by. Lou began to vaguely remember some account of another group that had suffered a similar fate on the mountain. He began to recall a story about some snowplow driver actually pushing the snow from the donut shop's parking lot on the summit down the "Y" Couloir to tumble over a thousand vertical feet upon whatever and whoever might be down there. Here they were at the junction of the Cog and the "Y" Couloir and it seemed a bit strange that the barrage was repeating itself. Could it be a snowplow? Could a driver actually be so thoughtless as to push it all down on them into the huge chasm known as the bottomless pit? The third barrage convinced them all that this was not natural. It came again after about the same length of time as before with the same amount of debris from roughly the same source…the top of the "Y" Couloir. Had they skied the "Y" Couloir they'd be dead. Had they been just a bit further down the Cog and into the "Y" they'd be dead. Thankfully they had all been together just to the side of the main path where the pounding was not as great. Cutting off the remainder of their descent they exited across rock to get out of harms way and climbed back up to the summit. As they moved away from the area they heard several more slides roaring down the "Y" in similarly timed waves. Upon reaching the top, employees of the donut shop confirmed that the plow had been at work and that the driver had driven off down the Pikes Peak highway just five minutes before they inquired about the incident. They walked over to the top of the "Y" Couloir and there, right at the edge was a huge snow bank. It was clear that as snow was added to the top the excess would tumble down the northeast face of the America's favorite fourteener. The backslope of the snowbank was continuous with the top of the "Y" Couloir and it was essentially a pile of icy snow chunks that were just scraped up. Although it hadn't snowed recently, the plow had been clearing the thawing hardpack of the parking lot. Bruce Hamilton, the operator of the "Pikes Peak Alpine School" became concerned for his customers' safety not to mention anyone else on the mountain when he heard about the affair. The four involved opted to let Bruce write a letter to inform the Pikes Peak road crew of the incident. Assuming it was just a one-time error of judgement on the part of a plow driver he expected the cooperation of the road crew to exercise more care. Almost a year later I called the highway maintenance crew of Pikes Peak and spoke with Preston. He recalled the incident and the letter from Bruce. When asked what has been changed as a result he said that the snow bank has been moved back from the edge somewhat but that there was really no other place to put the excess snow during times of heavy snowfall. I asked if any signs were posted to warn skiers and climbers. Preston answered that the highway's permit with the Forest Service only extends 150 feet on either side of the road. I took that to mean that they did not have the authority to post signs at the runout of the couloir where climbers would begin their ascent. Certainly they could post one at the top where skiers would start. I asked him how skiers and climbers would be able to find out when the plowing would occur so they could avoid it. He suggested that they call 719-385-PEAK (7325) and hit the appropriate button after listening to the menu to reach the highway crew. When I asked him if he was aware that the Pikes Peak Alpine School had a permit from the Forest Service to use that side of the mountain he answered that he was not aware of what permits the school may have with the Forest Service. Asking a lawyer with the Colorado Attorneys General's office about liability if there were an injury or death resulting from the parking lot's snow removal actions I got an interesting answer. The state and all city governments within the state have "sovereign immunity" which means you can't sue the state (or Colorado Springs which manages the Pikes Peak Highway) without the state's permission. The governor can waive this and allow a lawsuit to proceed. Gov. Romer did in a case where the state highway department rolled a boulder onto people in cars driving below. The lawsuit was successful and the victims' families won. One can only guess at what the governor would do in the hypothetical case of a skier/climber being injured/killed by parking lot snow removal on Pikes Peak. Since the event would happen on Forest Service land that would involve yet another complication. If the highway department doesn't have a big liability problem here perhaps they have a moral obligation to at least warn others who they endanger. During the months of April and May there are dozens of people skiing all over the peak. Most of them are customers of the Pikes Peak Highway and have payed $8 - $20 per vehicle to use it. While it's true that a fraction of those skiers attempt to ski the terrain below the parking lot the school is bringing folks up there on a more routine basis. Let's face it, not everyone is up there just taking pictures and eating donuts. If you are thinking about taking some runs anywhere on Pikes Peak please be aware that it is not a ski area, there is no ski patrol, obstacles are certainly not marked, there is no avalanche control and trails are not groomed. Frequently the snow is so wind packed or frozen so hard that your skis won't even make a mark in it. If you fall on this surface you could take off like a bar of wet soap. Check the runout below you to see if you'll smash into rocks or trees below. Know where you're skiing. It's easy to get confused and start down a run only to find it ends in a cliff. You may want to climb an extreme run before you ski it. Like any other backcountry destination you should be aware of potential avalanche danger as well, carry the recommended equipment and know how to use it. The road makes this mountain accessible to hoards of skiers and boarders who otherwise would not be there. As you can imagine there have been many deaths and injuries over the years. Some of the victims were experienced and prepared. Don't be lulled into complacency by the party-like atmosphere that sometimes occurs on a beautiful May weekend. And finally, if you think you're skilled enough to do something as steep and dangerous as the Cog or "Y" Couloirs and you think you have the mountain smiling on you that morning, watch out for the plowman. Dave Sauer