andyf

As of the end of the day Thursday, March 24, the Trust for Public Land had gotten in $2,120 from climbers. That's about a quarter of the way toward our minimum goal ($8,500) in just seven days! We still need to raise at least $6,380 by the end of April. And, the money so far has come from just 17 climbers. We can do better than that! Please chip in whatever you can afford--$10, $25, $50, whatever--to help out. We CAN do this! Andy Fitz, Washington Climbers Coalition

I've only toproped Red M&Ms, not led it, but I got on it a number of times in the late 80s/early 90s. Each time I continued straight up the left-hand seam at the crux, rather than moving right where you now see a bunch of chalk off on the right-hand arete. (There was no chalk on the arete back then. Of course, there was no chalk ANYWHERE at Vantage back then.) I don't know if this is harder than moving right, but it always seemed .12a to me.

It's like putting money in the stock market--you need to have faith in your fellow investors. $8500 is NOT that much to raise: it's 350 people chipping in $25 apiece. Already today, I'm aware of one person who's donated $1,000, two people who've each given $100, and one person giving $50. Another just e-mailed me saying he wanted to pledge $100. I'm planning to cut a check myself for $150. So, that's $1500 right there. Not even through our first day, we're down to needing 280 climbers at $25 each. We can make this happen. For everyone on this site who talks about access, here's a chance to something about it! Now back to the debate about ticks...

On the whole, the rock at the Oasis is worse than any other "developed" Tieton crag, with the exception of Goose Egg. That said, there are some pretty fun routes at the Oasis. Based on what you described, you didn't get on them! I think you'll find nearly all of the sport routes at the other crags--and most of the trad routes (especially 5.10 and up)--to be solid and well-cleaned.

I know you said anything harder than the Mountaineer's Route might be a bit much, but Myopia (also on the Perch) is one of the best routes I've ever climbed. Anywhere. IMHO.

The Bend is closed as well.

I might add that I have no idea about the current status of the "private" side of the Painted Rocks.

I placed my first gear at the Painted Rocks; some Campbell Nuts I bought off a dude at the UW Rock! The Highway 12 side of the painted rocks, which was mainly used for a long bouldering traverse, was closed by State Parks years ago out of concern for the pictographs. The area around the corner (which offered short leads and topropes) was closed in the late 80s by the private owner after a bunch of kids (I assume) went on a graffiti binge. (Among other things, they [somewhat ironically] painted a huge ecology symbol.) There are some other short leads to be found on scattered formations up Cowiche Canyon. All in all, though, there's not much point in spending time looking for them when you can find much better climbing in the Tieton by driving another 20 minutes.

Sobo's hit it on the head. "Locals" have avoided TPW for habitat reasons, plus if you hike to the crag, you'll find out the rock is decidedly inferior to other Tieton areas (generally decomposed and vegetated). IMHO, it should be left alone. Good job on Sugar Kicks, JayB! It's a fun route.

Agreed. My point in making the comment was to disabuse any illusion that bolted routes in the Tieton are "new," (as in certain folks jumping to the conclusion that "damned sport climbers have found the place"). We've enjoyed a nice mix of styles for many years. I hope that with more and more people "discovering" the Tieton, people respect the area, its environment, and its history.

Actually, at the Royal Columns, the "newest" bolted route is 10 years old (established in 1994). Nearly every other bolted route is more like fifteen years old (established in 1988-89). Many of the bolts have been updated recently, though.

(This is being posted to two threads, responding to Dane’s posts concerning the Access Fund and WCC.) First, to be clear, as a personal matter I neither agree with nor condone bolted on holds (manufactured or natural), the intentional creation of holds, marking route names on the rock, or—as a general concept—placing bolts in terrain that can be easily protected with removable gear. Given free reign to change the world to suit my tastes, I also would love to erase any number of routes at Exit 38 and Frenchman Coulee that offend my personal aesthetic for route spacing, purity of line, and the general appearance of a natural space. For most of the past ten years, however, I’ve volunteered my time to work on climbing issues. I was the Access Fund’s regional coordinator for Washington from 1995 until I resigned this summer; I was a member of the Access Fund’s board of directors from 1997-2003; and most recently, I’ve been active in helping to form the Washington Climbers Coalition. In those roles, I’ve largely kept my opinions as a climber to myself. Some might criticize this approach as “weak,” but I’ve always felt that in order to maximize my effectiveness, I needed to maintain an open channel to all climbers. Keeping that channel open hinges, in my mind, on not being perceived as having an “agenda” and on keeping my focus on issues that raise objective access concerns (as opposed to matters more confined to debate among climbers). In the case of Dishman, I think the practices of bolting on holds, marking route names at the base, and chipping do raise objective access concerns. Having those practices take place at any crag—regardless of how much of a “shit pile” someone might consider it—may very well affect access at other crags. (A real world example: Climber conduct at Fossil Rock in the late 80s/early 90s created access problems at Little Si a few years later.) At a certain point bolting practices may also raise concerns, but the issue of whether a bolt next to a crack is “bad” while a bolt in a blank face may be “OK” is, in my direct experience, a question of that is of true significance to climbers only, unless a land manager or owner is forced into a pissing match between warring climbers. Of course, just such a pissing match exists here, with the landowner now forced into the conflict. And, in one of life’s ironic twists, I’m sitting in the position of responding to a critical post from Dane when I agree on a personal level with most of his objections, I agree that the issues mentioned above raise objective access concerns, and I agree with Off White’s statement that the actions taken at the September 26 cleanup appear to be, in and of themselves, a “reasonable solution.” So what gives? There is a distinction to be made between bad people and bad actions. I think this distinction has been confused at Dishman. I’ve never met the folks responsible for bolting on the holds, but I know people who know them, and it’s obvious to me from attending the August meeting in Spokane that the folks have a lot of friends. This “controversy” took a personal turn from the start. I think a large number of Spokane climbers on the “other side” of this issue from Dane are on the “other side” because of the manner in which this issue developed. In my opinion the resulting defensiveness and polarization has, to this point, precluded the “compromise” that I’ve felt was appropriate all along. That “compromise” is one that would have Dishman looking very much like, if not identical to, the way it looked at the end of September 26. I participated in the conference call Dane has mentioned. Michael, Matt and I all shared our sense that we could make progress on the real issues at Dishman if the wind was taken out of the war of wills. I, for one, expressed my sense that the key to making such progress was for Dane to turn down the heat and allow a third party to step in. I still believe that today. Bottom line: I don’t think the goals of the AF and WCC are any different than those of Dane at Dishman. I’m concerned, though, that if we stay on the current course, we’re headed toward a divided community, a closed cliff, and potential repercussions elsewhere. I’m tempted to continue. I’m frustrated by the inference that I was unresponsive to Dane until a week or so ago; I’m frustrated by the suggestion that the AF, the WCC and I took no interest in Dishman until recently; and I’m frustrated by the way in which the AF and WCC have been characterized in a number of posts. I’ll fully admit to lapses in responsiveness to a number of folks over the past year (which is one of the reasons I resigned as a regional coordinator, probably a year too late), but I won’t admit to that in this case. The point of this post, though, is a call to depersonalize and de-escalate this situation, so I’ll let it go. Peace, Andy Fitz

(This is being posted to two threads, responding to Dane’s posts concerning the Access Fund and WCC.) First, to be clear, as a personal matter I neither agree with nor condone bolted on holds (manufactured or natural), the intentional creation of holds, marking route names on the rock, or—as a general concept—placing bolts in terrain that can be easily protected with removable gear. Given free reign to change the world to suit my tastes, I also would love to erase any number of routes at Exit 38 and Frenchman Coulee that offend my personal aesthetic for route spacing, purity of line, and the general appearance of a natural space. For most of the past ten years, however, I’ve volunteered my time to work on climbing issues. I was the Access Fund’s regional coordinator for Washington from 1995 until I resigned this summer; I was a member of the Access Fund’s board of directors from 1997-2003; and most recently, I’ve been active in helping to form the Washington Climbers Coalition. In those roles, I’ve largely kept my opinions as a climber to myself. Some might criticize this approach as “weak,” but I’ve always felt that in order to maximize my effectiveness, I needed to maintain an open channel to all climbers. Keeping that channel open hinges, in my mind, on not being perceived as having an “agenda” and on keeping my focus on issues that raise objective access concerns (as opposed to matters more confined to debate among climbers). In the case of Dishman, I think the practices of bolting on holds, marking route names at the base, and chipping do raise objective access concerns. Having those practices take place at any crag—regardless of how much of a “shit pile” someone might consider it—may very well affect access at other crags. (A real world example: Climber conduct at Fossil Rock in the late 80s/early 90s created access problems at Little Si a few years later.) At a certain point bolting practices may also raise concerns, but the issue of whether a bolt next to a crack is “bad” while a bolt in a blank face may be “OK” is, in my direct experience, a question of that is of true significance to climbers only, unless a land manager or owner is forced into a pissing match between warring climbers. Of course, just such a pissing match exists here, with the landowner now forced into the conflict. And, in one of life’s ironic twists, I’m sitting in the position of responding to a critical post from Dane when I agree on a personal level with most of his objections, I agree that the issues mentioned above raise objective access concerns, and I agree with Off White’s statement that the actions taken at the September 26 cleanup appear to be, in and of themselves, a “reasonable solution.” So what gives? There is a distinction to be made between bad people and bad actions. I think this distinction has been confused at Dishman. I’ve never met the folks responsible for bolting on the holds, but I know people who know them, and it’s obvious to me from attending the August meeting in Spokane that the folks have a lot of friends. This “controversy” took a personal turn from the start. I think a large number of Spokane climbers on the “other side” of this issue from Dane are on the “other side” because of the manner in which this issue developed. In my opinion the resulting defensiveness and polarization has, to this point, precluded the “compromise” that I’ve felt was appropriate all along. That “compromise” is one that would have Dishman looking very much like, if not identical to, the way it looked at the end of September 26. I participated in the conference call Dane has mentioned. Michael, Matt and I all shared our sense that we could make progress on the real issues at Dishman if the wind was taken out of the war of wills. I, for one, expressed my sense that the key to making such progress was for Dane to turn down the heat and allow a third party to step in. I still believe that today. Bottom line: I don’t think the goals of the AF and WCC are any different than those of Dane at Dishman. I’m concerned, though, that if we stay on the current course, we’re headed toward a divided community, a closed cliff, and potential repercussions elsewhere. I’m tempted to continue. I’m frustrated by the inference that I was unresponsive to Dane until a week or so ago; I’m frustrated by the suggestion that the AF, the WCC and I took no interest in Dishman until recently; and I’m frustrated by the way in which the AF and WCC have been characterized in a number of posts. I’ll fully admit to lapses in responsiveness to a number of folks over the past year (which is one of the reasons I resigned as a regional coordinator, probably a year too late), but I won’t admit to that in this case. The point of this post, though, is a call to depersonalize and de-escalate this situation, so I’ll let it go. Peace, Andy Fitz

I think you're referring to Inca Roads. The route just right of the 5.11 face (Imperial Master) and ending at the same anchor, right? As for Yellow Spur, are we talking about the finish that bails left below the final two bolts (above the fixed pins), or finishing directly? I think finishing directly up the bolt ladder is now considered .10b. I know it felt harder than 5.9 to me!

South Fork is a pile. You're just as fortunate to have gotten lost. Nothing to see there, move along. Besides, I seem to remember you berating sport routes in the Tieton at one time; something about them not having mindless jugs, like 38 or Vantage...

Jack: For some more background on Darland Mountain, read chapters 5 and 7 in "Of Men and Mountains" by William O. Douglas (late U.S. Supreme Court Justice who grew up in nearby Yakima). Douglas refers to Darland Mountain by its other name, "Darling Mountain." As you've gathered, you can drive right to the top of Darland. I once spent the night up there with some friends when I was in high school. Darland Mountain has a fabulous view directly across to the Goat Rocks Wilderness Area, as well as Mt. Adams and Mt. Rainier. I still remember a spectacular sunrise hitting the peaks to the west. It was also June, when the mountain top is covered with blue lupine and red Indian paintbrush in bloom. So, to add some memories to your trip, you might plan on car camping at the top (no improvements; just pull off the road) and timing your trip to hit the flower season (early to mid-June, I think).

I know the guy who put it up (FKA anyway) and he has small hands.

Good God, it’s been such a long time since I posted that I forgot my password and had to create a new identity! HB 1195, which became law in 2003, amended an existing Washington statute that immunizes landowners (public and private) who don’t charge a fee for using their land from liability related to accidents involving recreational users, unless the accident is caused by “known dangerous artificial latent condition" for which the landowner has failed to post a conspicuous warning. So, the idea is to encourage landowners to let people recreate on their land by immunizing them from liability, unless there’s some hidden manmade deathtrap the landowner knows about but doesn’t warn about. The amendment added "rock climbing" to the list of recreational activities mentioned in the statute, although it would have been pretty hard to argue that climbing didn’t already fit within the scope of the statute. The more significant change is new language providing that “A fixed anchor used in rock climbing and put in place by someone other than a landowner is not a known dangerous artificial latent condition and a landowner…shall not be liable for unintentional injuries resulting from the condition or use of such an anchor.” There’s also new language stating that “By providing that a landowner shall not be liable for any unintentional injuries arising from the condition or use of a fixed anchor used in rock climbing, the legislature recognizes that such fixed anchors are recreational equipment used by climbers for which a landowner has no duty of care.” This means that unless they place the bolts (or fixed pins or whatever) themselves, landowners don’t need to worry about whether the third bolt on Route X is a time bomb that someone might later argue is a “known dangerous artificial latent condition.” (Concern over this issue, among other things, led to a landowner closing the Winter Walk Wall at Frenchman Coulee a few years ago.) So here’s how it all happened: There’s a small toprope crag near the Tri-Cities that was closed by Walla Walla County awhile back due to alleged liability concerns. (A lot of people think the closure had more to do with a neighbor who didn’t like climbers looking into his back yard.) A couple of Tri-City climbers got in touch with their local representative, Jerome Delvin, who dropped a bill to add “rock climbing” to the list of activities mentioned in the recreational use immunity statute. I got wind of this and showed up to testify at a hearing before the House committee considering the bill. I supported Rep. Delvin’s change, but added that the legislature should also make it clear that a landowner shouldn’t be liable for fixed anchors placed by climbers. I testified that fixed anchors were part of a climber's recreational equipment, just like a cyclist's bike or a hunter's gun. It just so happens that unlike a bike or a gun, in order to be useful, a fixed anchor has to be left in place. Explaining climbing to a bunch of legislators in the limited time of a hearing was interesting. I brought some visual aids to help out (a Friend to explain removable pro and a bolt w/ hanger to explain fixed pro). Several legislators got hung up on the idea that climbers would trust their lives to fixed protection placed by someone else. By the end I got my point across. After I testified, a committee staff person got in touch with me to work on putting my ideas into the bill. The new language in the statute is pretty much mine, except the part about the language not applying to a landowner who places fixed anchors him or herself. The committee staffer felt strongly that the legislature shouldn’t immunize a landowner who creates the condition that might lead to an accident. Sorry about that, Off White! I think this amendment is a great step in reducing landowner liability concerns. I’ve had one success story already as a result of the law. Andy Fitz Washington Regional Coordinator, The Access Fund PS: I'm a volunteer looking for help!