Redoubt

I'd go by air.

Uh, on THIS board?

Tod, where did you see that number? I can't imagine that Wild Country, Metolius and all the rest are sharing only 5% of the total cam market.

So, uh, where is your buddy an ER doc? I might want to avoid that place on mornings after he's done a trip like this one. Great job on the traverse, and a completely believable overall time. As mentioned above, people have done an even longer version still under 24 hours.

Mtngrrrl, I'd encourage you to think carefully about making this your standard procedure. Most alpine climbers (including me) will definitely do whatever needs to be done when the gear runs low (or threatens to). But keep in mind that, at least according to BD testing, two slings girth hitched are about 30% weaker than two slings connected with a biner. With high strength slings, that will likely still be sufficiently strong. But excessive strength and redundant safety are good things in climbing if they don't cost much, and neutrinos are pretty damn light. I have girth hitched slings, slings to wires, and come up with whatever else I can think of when lack of gear dictates, and I definitely will do those things again when I guess wrong about my gear needs. But I typically head up with what I at least think is enough gear to avoid doing any of them, and that includes enough neutrinos to avoid girth hitching slings. If there is anything comforting about girth hitching when you run out of biners, it's that typically this will happen toward the end of a lead when there's plenty of rope out and the force on your placement will tend to be less than it would be down low. If you continue to do this, you might at least do it selectively when you think the fall factor is low, and use your biners to connect slings in higher force situations.

And in case it ever comes up, one of the interesting things to note in the BD article is that, if you are hitching together slings of different strengths, put the girth hitch in the stronger sling. When you connect two slings with a girth hitch, you are really only putting a hitch in one of them. The other sling has no knot in it at all.

Uhh, no, I'd say that's about 1.00000000000001 against. HEY! Didn't think I needed to point out that you count as 1, Cracked.

Uhh, no, I'd say that's about 1.00000000000001 against.

Those are admirable times in and out, and I don't doubt them for a second, but those are faster than an average team will be able to do, even from the parking spot at the wye. Just so no one gets misled, most parties will take longer. Having been in there a couple of times, and knowing others who have as well, I'd say 7 hours is a more typical time to get from the car to Ouzel Lake.

Well, TG, I appreciate your response, and since you welcome further discussion, I'll offer some. And what I say is worth what you're paying for it. I agree completely with the idea that the "you slip, you die" zone is common and, in many cases, completely reasonable. You explained it as well as I could, so I'll just leave it at that. No argument whatsoever. I also agree with your assessment, in hindsight, and in light of the time of season and high freezing level, that you should have turned back on the North Face once that first rockfall occurred. When I look at these two climbs (Yokum and N Face), though, I still would argue that they were both undertaken in conditions where they should not even have been considered. Especially Yokum. Full disclosure: I have climbed the N Face (under ideal conditions in March) but have never attempted Yokum Ridge. I have two guidebooks that mention YR. Here is what Thomas’ Oregon High says about it. "Rotten rock towers guard its crest. They cannot be climbed unless they are covered by a thick layer of rime ice." Here is what Smoot's Climbing the Cascade Volcanoes says about YR. "Periods of cold weather, with snow and ice cover, are prerequisites for climbing this route. Climbers attempting this route during any other conditions should expect continuous, copious rockfall and Class 5 climbing on nightmarishly loose rock." And, “This route has abundant loose rock, extreme rockfall hazard and bad protection. Take pitons and ice screws for luck if nothing else.” He also refers to it as a “suicide” route. Copious rockfall. Nightmarishly loose rock. It is route descriptions like this that made me say that you left the parking lot with unacceptable risk. Now, I'll be the first one to say that I don't consider either of these guidebooks to be the guiding light by which any of us should base our route choices. And I applaud any climbers who buck conventional wisdom and attempt what has not traditionally been considered climbable. But I do not applaud anyone who ignores a preponderance of evidence that says that a route involves a level of objective danger that makes attempting it foolish by any reasonable standards. I think YR, under the conditions you attempted it, is such a route. You seem to want to focus on your decision to turn around on YR as being the correct one. While I agree that it was a good decision, it was WAY too long in coming. I don't have your Yokum TR at hand, but I do remember it quite well (it made quite an impression). Before you took what was your final lead, you described the rockfall that came down as Tex was leading. After reading that, I simply could not believe that you chose to continue UP! Iain made an earlier comment with which I could not agree more. "I see no reward for climbing things like Yocum out of season. Doesn't matter what skill you have on that dirt, you're just as likely to get the chop as someone you pick up off the street in those conditions." You said "So you see, if I were more skilled I could have safely pushed farther on Yokum…" I disagree. Increased skill will not add meaningfully to your ability to safely negotiate that kind of rock. My impression is that Tex is a pretty skilled rock climber. Maybe he will, and maybe he will not, knock off less rock on a route like this as he gains more alpine experience, but he will never be able to climb that pitch safely in those conditions. No one can. When rock like that comes off on a route like that in conditions like that, it's not the fault of the leader. Any experienced alpine climber knows there is a limit to the control you have in areas of bad rock. The rockfall situation you described in your Yokum TR was far beyond any reasonable acceptable limit. Rather than thinking that more skill would have allowed you to go further, I'd suggest that your climbing skill should have led you to go climbing elsewhere that day. The point I am really trying to make here is that, while you seem to find some important difference between the natural rockfall on the North Face and leader-caused rockfall on Yokum, there is no functional difference between them when the leader can't avoid dumping rock on his belayer. Whether you are soloing in warm summer conditions on the N Face, or belaying a leader who is trying to negotiate rock that is as horrible as it gets on YR, rock is going to come down on you. Period. Doesn't matter where the rock came from if it's the rock that takes you out. Like most everyone else out there, I climb for many reasons. Like most everyone else out there, I fail miserably trying to articulate what those reasons are. I can say that, while sometimes I climb for training, or for exercise, or just to get away, or just to find some views or some sublime bivy site, I also sometimes pursue that class of climb that makes me feel most "accomplished" as a climber. Call them my hardman climbs. My hardman climbs may be someone else's walkups, and they may be someone else's Everests, but they are climbs that push me and make demands of me and test me as a climber. I think maybe these demands and tests are something that many of us look for. When I think of hardman climbs, I think of climbs that push climbers physically, technically and psychologically. I think of climbs that test a climber's ability to endure and suffer. I think of climbs that require excellent judgement and a high skill level in many respects. I think of climbs that push a climber's envelope. I applaud the efforts of many climbers these days to push what can be done car-to-car, and to pare down pack weight and equipment to the barest essentials. However, I do NOT think hardman climbs are those where the most notable characteristic is that they subject one to extreme objective danger, and I have to wonder if that objective danger is a characteristic that you find important. YR in its best shape might be a good hardman climb. YR in its worst shape is a suicide route. I think there is a logical end to the career of a climber who counts high objective danger as a worthy characteristic to look for in potential routes. Tex said earlier "We all know that many have played that same game and lost. It is hard though to just stop gambling when you love being the casino. I can only say that I try to play with style and enough caution to stay in the game for another round. So far so good-" "So far so good" is, unfortunately, not a good way to measure or assess one's judgment when it comes to what is acceptable objective risk while climbing. Someone who has successfully survived 10 rounds of Russian Roulette with a loaded pistol can say "so far so good," but their luck WILL eventually run out. So will the luck of a climber who consistently ignores objective hazards, or thinks that skill will somehow keep an avalanche or rockfall from taking them out. TG, I think you are like everyone else who is trying to find some challenge and fulfillment and gratification out in the mountains. But I honestly think you are leaning too much on high risk as the road to get there. There's enough inherent risk out there that we all get more of it than we usually want. I really hope you start looking to do climbs faster, or do climbs harder, or do climbs higher, or do climbs lighter or do climbs requiring more suffering, rather than looking to do climbs with greater objective risk.

Two questions, TG. First, do you honestly feel that on Yokum you did not continue with "inherent un-acceptable risk?" Man, you left the parking lot with inherent unacceptable risk. Second, I keep reading the above quoted "subtle difference" you describe, and it is apparently over my head. Could you explain the difference you are talking about?

Do some web searches for EDK and Tom Moyer and you'll find some references to his testing. You can also find out who he is and whether or not you want to trust his data (I do). One link is below (you knew you'd get pointed elsewhere!). Just pay attention to the fact that he tests two versions of the EDK - fig 8 (sucks) and overhand (solid). And note that the when the overhand edk "rolls," it is not failing. All of his tests that I've seen show the overhand edk actually failing at very high forces, typically over 2000 pounds. That's a bit more force than I, for one, can generate on a rap! To answer your original question, I use the overhand edk with no backup and trust it completely. http://www.xmission.com/~tmoyer/testing/EDK.html

Ryland, if I were feeling the way you do, I'd ask myself which "wrong" decision would cause me the greater regret: Going to the memorial and feeling afterwards that I should have gone climbing instead, or going climbing and feeling afterwards that I should have gone to the memorial instead. My own answer would be that I have one chance to go to this particular memorial, and much more flexibility as far as when I can get away for my preferred memorial in the mountains. I'd go to the memorial and save myself from even the possibility of feeling bad later about missing it.

If you will attest that you were wearing shorts over polypro longjohns, your application will be reviewed.

Probably all dependent on conditions. I've never done the traverse, but did check it out once from just above Whatcom Pass at a time when it would clearly have required walking below huge blocks of ice that were sitting on wet slabs. Reminded me a lot of traversing the pocket glacier approaching NE Buttress of Slesse. I also just checked Nelson Vol I, where he says "danger from falling and sliding ice." Like so many other places, probably pretty risky at some times and pretty safe at other times.

Nice job! And exactly how I remember the off-width from several years ago. I never came close to feeling like I might fall. The entire problem was how to inch upwards.

Oh yes it is!

I'm surprised there aren't more serious injuries here considering the number of people who continue climbing up when large rocks litter the snow around them from about 9000 feet, and there is a sand pile loaded with hurking boulders perched precariously on one another, and it's right above them. Seriously, judging from the rest of your post, you should have maybe abandoned the climb short of the summit if you felt you would not have been there in the first place had you known of the danger level. For what it's worth, this is not advice I always follow myself, but I have many times. Especially on a route as accessible as the South Side of Hood, it's always there another day.

Then why take the chance? I've also climbed the route this time of year and encountered pretty hard ice. I'm all for fast-n-light when it makes sense, and to the degree it makes sense. But we're not talking about much of an approach here, and we are talking about a route that can get a bit technical. Beef up your footwear and have a great climb.

Well, duh. So, what's your point?

Don't know this site all that well yet, but I'm reading old threads and posts like mad trying to figure out what the hell you've got here. But I have to say that you have a laughable policy on slide shows, boys. This whole site is loaded with useless crap, having nothing to do with climbing, and you don't want to allow the announcement of for-profit slide shows for fear of spamming? Are you kidding? Have you lost all perspective? Does anyone else out there think that there should be some way for "The Pacific Northwest's Climbers' Resource", which allows someone like trask to post endless reams of useless crap, and which now has a "chat" room, to get out the word that one of the premier mountaineers of this country is giving a slide show, regardless of who is sponsoring it? Here's a suggestion. Add a forum called Slide Shows, or Shows, or Events, or whatever. Allow anyone to post any climbing-related event whatsoever, regardless of whether it's free or not, and regardless of whether it benefits the Mazamas, The Republican Party, or Acme Logging. If anyone wants to avoid the spam, they can simply avoid that forum. You know, kinda like you can avoid spray by not going into the Spray forum. [i'd insert some sarcasm graemlin here if I had the time to look for one.] Actually, come to think of it, you don't even need to add a new forum. Since you allow spray absolutely everywhere, and the "Spray" forum obviously means nothing to anybody, just change the name. By the way, I just love the description you have for the Spray forum: "If it's not climbing related this is where you post it." Hah!