Norman_Clyde

What a relief that research dollars are being spent so wisely. Surely this discovery will help to allay the anxiety climbers have been experiencing over this embarrassing phenomenon.

This report is an inspiration. To the anonymous soloist, whoever he is: I'm glad you got to have the mountain to yourself, and glad you shared the story with us.

I figured this thread would be good for some differing opinions. My 2 cents: any unroped glacier travel poses a risk of crevasse falls, but there's a huge range of risk, and sometimes it's reasonable to travel unroped on certain glaciers at certain times of year. I descended the Sitkum solo after a laborious roundabout ascent of Glacier, 3 hours of slide alder purgatory up Baekos Creek, because I decided it was better to descend a glacier in the presence of other climbers than to proceed solo back the long, complicated way I had come up. All the crevasses were so wide open, no soft snow anywhere (it was August), that the chance of a crevasse being hidden seemed small enough. On the other end of the scale, speaking of Fisher Chimneys: I met a party last year that had just ascended the North Face of Shuksan unroped. One of them had punched through to shoulder depth on the way. They thought this was very amusing. I watched them descend our trail on the upper Sulphide, where I had seen several barely hidden deep crevasses. They never paused. Any of them could easily have been the one remembered for dying on the Sulphide because they were unroped.

I'm curious how the crowd feels about the principle of always roping up on a glacier. I suspect that most of us stay roped, and express dismay at idiots who don't, except for those times when we break our own rule. So: if you travel unroped on a glacier, how do you justify it from a safety standpoint? Do you think that this risk is reasonable to assume under some circumstances?

For another lesson on shock loading, this time while the leader was belaying the second, check out page 71 of 2000 Accidents in N. American Mountaineering. This accident at Peshastin was due to miscommunication while preparing to lower the second back to a missed piece, but to the point: second falls, cordelette to anchors is loose, belayer whipped down onto rock, fractures his skull, loses belay, second falls 80 feet to ground, fractures ankle, wrist and femur. Miraculously they both survived. Really brings home the importance of being in line with your anchor, and keeping the line of force taut, at all times when belaying a second.

This has remained a burning question in my mind, whether the ski mountaineer assumes a higher level of risk if he/she does not rope up on a glacier. I've never been on a glacier with skis on. I can imagine wearing a rope to ski up, but what about skiing down? Seems pretty impractical to rope yourself to someone else unless your group is mighty well coordinated and skis at exactly the same speed. So if you're not going to rope up on the descent, why bother roping up on the ascent? Yet clearly this violates the cardinal rule "never go onto a glacier unroped." What do the veterans among you have to say?

It's considered a 4 day trip in the summer. I think it's 14 miles up the Hoh river valley to the base. I can't really figure why that would take 4 days, since day 2 should be enough for the climb and day 3 to walk out. If there's any snow on the approach trail, which I figure there is, it would be a real slog in and out.

Last year before a Sierras trip I priced bearproof containers at $75.00 apiece at REI. This compared unfavorably with $3.00 to rent from the rangers at Yosemite. These are made for food only and are only about 9 inches by 15 inches, kind of like a very big coffee can. I would not spring for anything this complicated to hold non-food items, which should not interest a bear anyway (unless they're pretty ripe with human scent). Maybe a big Rubbermaid plastic box will work.

Mike, thanks for the informative posts. Any of you who think that rangers don't have a right, or even a duty, to scrutinize climbers for competence should check out the story on page 28 of "Accidents in North American Mountaineering 2000". True, this was Denali, not Rainier, but the point is that it was abundantly clear this guy had no business on the mountain (his entire experience to that point was three summer ascents of Long's Peak), but no one with authority acted to keep him from his attempt. The result was that several parties had to become involved in his rescue. Fortunately, no one was hurt or killed. I would guess with Rainier's much greater accessibility, rangers here would encounter a far greater number of inexperienced and unprepared individuals. I'm curious how often they have to actually refuse people permission to climb. This part of a ranger's job would have to be a real chore, but it improves the safety of everyone on the mountain. I'm certainly glad someone is there to do it, and I don't begrudge the climbing fee one bit.

How long was the approach by this route? There must be some reason why this approach is less popular. Bushwacking problems? More rockfall danger?

I spoke to the Park Service and Forest Service yesterday to confirm the post about the Dosewallips road. This washout is not from a side stream, but from the river itself taking a big bite out of the bank. It's impassable to cars or bikes, and probably treacherous even to cross on foot. Any repair will likely be delayed for months, because of environmental impact on the river and budget considerations. Access to the Dose trailhead therefore involves a difficult crossing plus six extra miles to hike. A climb of Mt Constance via the usual approach doesn't make much sense at this point. A pure E. face ascent via the Tunnel Creek trail, while longer than the standard approach, is probably shorter than the above hike past the washout. Tunnel Creek trail can be reached from the Dose road just short of the washout, or from the N. side which is higher elevation but would have snow until spring.

The National Park does seem pretty passive about maintenance sometimes. But this washout is on national forest land-- and they love building roads, don't they? But the lady at the forest service in Hoodsport said that they had to coordinate this project with several agencies, specifically because there are a couple of endangered species of fish in the river (salmon runs, maybe, though I don't think any salmon can get past Dose falls a few miles above, so there couldn't be too many in such a short stretch from Hood Canal). I wouldn't mind it if they rebuilt the bridge on the Anderson Pass trail either.

Where did it wash out? How many miles in?

I have a policy of always threading a new piece of webbing through the old anchors, no matter how many are already there, no matter how new they seem to be. It might seem excessive, but how much does webbing cost, and how stupid would the story be that lives on after you, that you failed to take such a simple step and then had the webbing (somebody else's old webbing) fail? Of course this is no help if the anchors themselves are no good.

I have not climbed this route, but I book I picked up in B.C. this fall (Alpine Select byKevin McLane) says:"This famous climb has suffered from glacial retreat in recent decades, so is less often in good [fast]condition...it is most commonly in its best condition before late July." In the photo from this book, dated Sept. 1998, "exceptionally dry conditions," it looks like a real mess to get through.

I'm late to this thread, and I'll probably never be the climber most of you guys are, but I have to say to Pope...amen, brother. The question of what to bolt is important, and we need to keep discussing it. There were a few ultra-purists in the early 20th century in Europe who felt that the use of a rope was a moral compromise. This movement literally died out as its proponents died in falls. The rest of us seem to agree that it's acceptable to protect yourself with a rope and anchors, including (at least sometimes) bolts. The argument is really about what these bolts mean. Even the fiercest environmentalist would probably admit that the rock doesn't mind being bolted-- at least, not very much. It's human beings (some of us) who suffer a loss, because the meaningof one part of their world has been corrupted. I'm not trying to sound ridiculous here. No climbing activity can hold up to logical scrutiny-- there's a quote from that recent book on El Cap from Ernst Becker's "The Denial of Death" that says, in essence, never look too closely at what you're doing to maintain your self esteem because it probably doesn't make much sense-- but I think there is a meaning and a purpose behind why we climb, and it's different for trad/alpine versus sport climbing, even for people who do both. There are some dishonest things about both pursuits, but sport climbing is fundamentally more dishonest, unless it's done with a top rope. A trad route without bolts can be climbed a hundred times with the leader facing the same challenge as the first ascent. This rarely happens because we use guidebooks, we get beta from other climbers, so we know more than that first guy knew. This is cheating to a small degree. Reading guidebooks and route descriptions is the top of the slippery slope; Sport climbing a rap-bolted route is the bottom (at least for now). The dishonesty of "lead" climbing a route that no one ever put up on lead is just a lot more obvious. But the real difference, I think, is how these climbs are defined in the mind. The challenge of a complex alpine ascent, in my mind, has more differences than similarities with a one pitch sport route. On a pure ascent, you don't have to know if anyone has been there before you, and you face not only the same physical challenges as anyone else has, but the same mental ones too. When I'm satisfied with a climb I've done, it's usually because I handled the mental challenges well. There are a few mental challenges to sport climbing, but the essence of this approach is to eliminate the mental challenge from climbing and reduce it to a purely physical act. If I follow each ethic to its logical end, then for trad climbing it's an onsight free solo of a great big mixed route, and for sport it's a one pitch (or even one or two move) route in a gym, a man-made route that exists only to serve human needs. I don't want to climb something that's there just to serve my needs. I want to discover the world more on its own terms. Both kinds of climbing can be fun, but the traditional approach has more meaning to me.

I saw an actual chart of the Olympic rain shadow once, and it heads ENE from the center of the range, with the lowest precipitation occurring in a spot between Port Townsend and Whidbey. The NE Olympics are definitely more "dry", but this is a relative term. Even Port Angeles gets less precipitation than Forks, and the Elwha valley has pine trees as well. The clouds tend to converge again once they pass the range, and there are even local weather phenomena due to the "convergence zone", where the weather is worse East of the rain shadow from the cloud systems slamming back together. I see the cascades from N. Seattle a lot more often than the Olympics, but the last few weeks have been unusual, both for seeing all mountains (Cascades, Olympics, Rainier) on overcast days due to a very high cloud layer, and also for seeing the Olympics on days when the Cascades are socked in.

I think you need a forest pass to park at the PCT parking lot in season. The forest pass is different from the sno-park pass, so one won't work for the other as far as I know. Another question is enforcement-- I don't believe they are issuing real citations with fines for people without forest passes, but it probably depends on the place.

the camera I would most like to use is a square format non-SLR-- I don't know the official name for these-- it is WWII vintage, one I inherited from my grandfather. This is the kind you have to look down into, but which has a ground glass instead of a viewfinder. I took it to a camera store after bringing it home, and they told me that no one makes film anymore to fit this size, because it's smaller format than the usual of this type. Major disappointment. I'd get a bigger one but they cost too much.

What is everyone's opinion on digital cameras? I have not been inclined to spring 300 bucks, which all the salespeople tell me is absolutely mandatory for adequate resolution, because I figure in six months I'll be able to buy the same for 200. I'm still using a huge clunky 1980's 35 mm, which I tend to leave behind or not bother to haul out of my pack. I'm sure that some of you must know where to get a 2.1 megapixel or higher, for a reasonable price.

Yes, I did have crampons but did not need them in the Chute, and it was more of a dry tooling situation on the other side. When I said "Pretty slabby" I mainly meant avalanche potential, with the upper portion having a fairly hollow sound and feel in parts, even though it was soft. I did not have serious concern at the time, but I'm thinking that this same spot in winter would be more heavily loaded and less consolidated-- yet it should be fine after a few warm days, as mneagle said. Descending the chute was actually a pleasant glissade, but I stopped partway down in order to traverse over to Crystal Pass. Yes, a belayed downclimb should be no problem, and if I get up there again I'll carry a rope.

There's no doubt if you plan a big Rainier ascent that it's hard to back out. When my brother in law came from Denver to climb it, I urged us to go ahead even though it was nearly white out at Paradise and, of course, nastier the higher we went. We were unwilling to rest and hydrate on the way, due to conditions being so unpleasant, and were all at stage I hypothermia by the time we staggered into the hut. We spent a wet night there (one hundred percent humidity inside, everything soaked) and slogged out the next day with a little more respect for Rainier weather. Makes a decent story, but almost any alternative would have been more fun, and certainly safer. We would have bailed if Steve hadn't flown all the way in, and the lesson is that if the weather is wrong, you bail no matter how far you came to get there. One guy on that above trip has proposed a 4 day West Side ascent in June, with a bivy on the summit. Though it adds time, a West Side approach makes this more of a wilderness mountain, without having to do it in the winter. Just one other idea for you.

I haven't done any of the trails you mention, but have been interested in high traverses in the Olympics, especially a point to point, such as up Enchanted Valley, maybe up Mt Anderson, then down Dosewallips. Another that could be done in a long day would be Dosewallips up to Constance Pass, over the saddle between Constance and Warrior Peak (I think that pass has no name), then over Crystal Pass into Avalanche Canyon, back down-- a nice loop with a fair amount of alpine travel. There are a few other crossings which would be fun and interesting, but which require two cars and a lot of driving.

It's true, it was only about a 30 foot drop but looked mighty slippery. I was solo, and did not bring a rope for rappels. The other party had a rope but still was not interested. Having read various posts on how this area is not a problem, I wonder what kept us from going for it at the time. There was not any debate among the four of us checking it out. I would figure that it might be simpler in winter, if part of the gully were snow filled.

I skied to 20 feet from the summit of Castle last February via a N. side approach, then around Castle to the East. We had aimed for Pinnacle saddle but avoided it because avalanche risk looked higher there. I considered scrambling to the summit-- it was literally 20 to 25 feet of high 4th/low 5th class-- but decided my tele boots might not be the best for it. The N. side is much steeper, though if approaching from the pinnacle/castle col it is still mostly snow and only briefly technical rock. Don't know anything about conditions there this year.