JosephH

Kevin, fortunately that isn't how or why I climb. The IB 'developers' didn't hold to the original line - I don't intend to hold to either of them. You entirely misconstrue the intent of my outing - I intend to stand at the start of it and treat it like it's never been climbed and let the rock speak to the line on its own...

Cat, once sport climbing areas are well established I tend to agree with you. It is the very often chaotic and messy process of the rapid development of a new area that most often causes the problem and that is definitely my perception in this case - there was little if anything subtle about it. You can disagree with this characterization of typical sport 'development' cycles, but I believe history is not necessarily going to be on your side.

Matt and Hawk, there is no doubt whatsoever that Jardine's chopped traverse made the free climb of the Nose [in totality] a possibility even though he was and is widely panned for having done it. That said, it's still an irreversible "damage done" deal. Neither of the folks party to the FFA would have chipped the traverse to have accomplished the FFA and I don't believe any subsequent [free] party or parties would ever either. It was a clear mistake borne of an obsession, but one that can not, as opposed to should not, be undone. The Nose also would not have been free climbed without a couple of rap-placed bolts and rap-removed pins. These decisions were entirely discretionary on the part of the later teams attempting to free climb the route. Would I have done it - no, I would have aided those stretches and I wouldn't use the chipped traverse either. But as a result, had I ever so aspired, no one would ever regard such a climb a 'free' ascent. Not a problem for me, but for folks gunning for the FFA, their call to resort to exactly the same 'methods of last resort' as the FA team were theirs to make or the Nose would likely never have been freed (and ditto for recent free/aid controversies on WFLT). And no, I haven't climbed the Nose, but there is no difference whatsoever between the last pitch of the Nose and the last pitch of the line on Prusik, in deed or method. So again - for me - whatever I think of those two pitches and routes, I am ethically bound to think exactly the same of both; they're either both legitimate in the context of those FFA attempts at the edge of the possible, or they're both bogus and not worthy of an FFA designation. I'm not prepared to call Brooke and Lynn's FFA effort on the Nose bogus and that unalterably leads me to the exact same assessment of the Prusik line. There is no appreciable difference between them at all. And if I hear you correctly Hawk, along with the Prusik line, you clearly do not recognize any 'free' ascent of the Nose. And hey, there are people in the Valley who look at it sideways too, so you're not entirely alone. I'm just not prepared to go there and make that judgment and that's in part because I would have come down on the other side of those calls - but only for myself, at that same time and place. Also, outside of Creek splitters and the odd short pitch here or there, the world of straightup, multipitch .13 and .14 trad climbing is rarely pure or without pre-cleaning and pre-inspection. Not many free, groundup, onsight trad 14's go down to say nothing of free, groundup, onsight trad 14 FAs. I'm not so quick to rush to judgment at the bleeding edge where trad - for short stretches - necessarily gives way in one form or another to what I call "sprad". Containing "sprad effects" at the bleeding edge of trad climbing to me means giving absolutley the least quarter possible to any and all methods and techniques which dilute a pure, clean, trad ascent. But I also recognize there are limits to free climbing - the odds of seeing free, ground up onsight trad 5.16 FA's is pretty damn slim no matter how much you want to look backwards and say "but 5.11 was the top end just xxx years ago". As far as free climbing is concerned - somewhere out there right at the limits we are rapidly closing in on - trad, sprad, sport, pre-placing, pre-inspection, pre-cleaning, etc., etc. all start to bleed into "can a human climb it free in any style, period" - again, much like at an event horizon or when humans play chess against computers. And that is my personal view - that there is a boiling ethical event horizon operating at all times at the very bleeding edge of climbing in all disciplines and just because something may happen there, I no way support the idea that means there is any legitimate ethical grounds, or wholesale carte blanche, to back-propogate it down to every 5.6 in the land. That in no way means 'anything goes' or that anything is 'acceptable' on that bleeding edge in my view - but it's at that bleeding edge where evolution occurs - and exactly because of that, what does occur there should be looked at hard before being simply turned loose into the wild. Jardine's traverse is a good example of one that did not survive the cut on inspection. From what I can tell, the difference between me and a lot of you folks is, that for me there is an evaluative ethical boundary which lives instantly behind the bleeding edge and the rules that apply there (like an event horizon) don't necessarily immediately apply to the entire known universe outside of it. Whereas for a lot of you folks, anytime anything happens at the bleeding edge you do want instant, unexamined ethical carte blanche to apply the same technique the next day to your pet 5.10, and the next guy to the 5.8 he's developing out of the goodness of his heart in an unselfish act of 'community service'. Rap-bolting is exactly such a method to me - my preference by far would have been that rap-bolting have never escaped into the wild of climbs of a lower grade then the practice was initially developed for. I'm no fan of bolting, period - lead, rap, power, hand - I consider them at best an occasional necessary evil. The use of them to push the boundaries of difficulty in climbing I get and can grudgingly accept; the use of them to simply to provide access to suburban hordes I do not. For me it isn't a matter of elitism - it's a matter of believing some things that happen at the bleeding edge should at times stay at that grade and not instantly back-propogate all the way down to 5.6's. I admit it's an inherently different perspective, but one I've held for thirty-three years of climbing and I'm not going to change it now. And by those measures I still consider the line on Prusik a stellar trad and free climbing route. IB on the otherhand - entirely aside from the land management and legal issues - is, for me, a one-ride alpine theme park conceived and put up by people who simply do not know the difference.

Matt, when I say sport-climbing in this context I mean the whole ball of wax. Flagrant trespassing, bolting, chalk, not being discreet, talking up routes and guidebooks, new people whose main focus and concern was their climbing. The whole package is what was an 'in your face' approach. And from everything I've read and been told, there was a long run of the complete opposite of the quiet approach of the original crew. It was clear from day one this wasn't a place to go 'whole hog' on your own trip - the first crew in realized that. It's the fairly self-absorbed 'development circus' I'm referring to and that's my opinion of what bit folks in the ass all the way around. That, and getting the law after tribal members over bolting issues was a surefire way to make a lasting impression that will not be soon forgotten the among the Colville. The bolts and chalk together in combination with the extended hoopla simply comes across as just another 'taking' without asking.

Kevin, I'm going to assume this is a joke. Either that or dude - man, put down that fatty - I consider your lines in the PRG-O to be ethically mighty by comparison to IB. The difference my friend, is you thought about every bolt you placed - they thought about every bolt as well, but only as they were putting together the order for 22 pitches worth of them.

Matt (et al), Again, about the only valid parallel I know is to routes like the Nose - it was freed by the use of a couple of judiciously applied bolts on rap. As I said, it was a sustained push over two years on that final headwall before a couple of bolts went in and if that crew put them in - on lead, on rap, however - trust me, there are only the absolute bare minimum needed, are precisely where required, and are not near pro of any kind. Is it my style - no, it is not - I don't climb at that level so I don't resort to those techniques. And lot of you folks in general seem to want blanket (Communistic) ethics across all climbers and all levels. This is another place we fundamentally disagree. Where you seem to want the same technique or drilling right to apply to a 5.7 line and climber as to a 5.13+ line and climber. I couldn't be more emphatically against the very idea of it. A large part of my gneral opposition to chalk, dogging, and sport climbs has to do with precisely this issue. If chalk were used when it was only necessary - like 5% of the time max; or folks only dogged/worked routes in the 12 > up range; or if bolted lines had stayed in the 12+ range on climbs worth the trade-offs - then, hell, I'd have no real problem with them as I personally recognize those as legitimate uses. But the next thing you know old Jed's a millionaire and folks are dumping bags of chalk on the 5.7 they're dogging up in the ultimate monkey, see monkey do and every other rock in America looks like an outdoor climbing gym. And so I eschew the techniques used to free both the Nose and Prusik for exactly that reason, because the next thing you know some gumby is rap bolting his prize 5.8 and instead of a just couple of discreet bolts he's bolting all f#cking 22-pitches. But, when the desire is to free something like the Nose or the last pitch on that line on Prusik - then even I am forced to recognize there is no option - it's either sink a couple of bolts or walk away from the line. But what isn't going to happen is bolting on lead. And as for bolting for the community - the line on Prusik is - if you are part of the community who can climb spartan 13+ and do the trad climbing as well - then it's all there for you.

Kevin - no 'call' was made. Period. A call would mean even thinking about it, instead these guys' sole intent was drilling a 22-pitch up Garfield. There is no other story.

Ken, I think our trio has an opening...

Hawk, I and others in the conversation have been at it longer than that, climb just as hard, and no I am not wrong. I'm as pure a ground-up, onsight trad climber as any and am still putting up reasonably hard trad FA's that way. It's the only way I put up routes and the only reason I climb. Again, if you can't figure out the scenarios and understand trad climbing at that level then, hey, you simply can't - fine. But personally, I'm not prepared to say the Nose isn't a trad climb, or by the exact same logic the route on Prusik.

And if you believe this: "BACK IN ABOUT TEN DAYS" - I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. So boys and girls, keep that calendar waaayy open-ended and take extra cash if you are entertaining this idea at all...

Same old shit for the same old reasons...

Boys, the line on Prusik is an independent .13+ free line put up by a crew of people who have endless respect for rock, have the experience to make the call, and no shortage of trad history and cred to back it up. Now I don't any details about how the bolt or bolts were put in - by hand or power - if they went in under power that would definitely be a big thumbs down from me everytime, but my understanding is they went in by hand. I similarly don't know whether the bolts could have been put in on hooks without jeapordizing the free climb. When trad FFA's enter the 13+ range and run into a mixed pitch no bolts are going in on free lead, putting them in on hooks might very well jeopardize the very holds necessary to do the free ascent. I have no problem with experienced climbers making the call on a free climb above .12s. That's how the Nose was freed and that's how routes in the .13 and above range with mixed pitches go free. I do know that the route took three trips over three years and the second and third years saw sustained effort to push the final headwall without the bolts. There is no hypocrisy whatsoever between my opinions on these two routes and no comparing them at all. Again, one is 13+ stellar trad route with a couple bolts on the last mixed pitch, the other is 22 pitches of bolts where no such attempt to utilize pro was ever made or even contemplated - the IB team went up there specifically and with the sole intent of drilling a provocative 22-pitch sport route up Garfield and succeeded - there was and is no justification for it at all. So Trog and Hawk, if you can't figure out the difference between the two scenarios then all I can conclude is neither of you have a clue about either trad and sport climbing. And if you think having put in the decades earning the cred to make tough calls on trad climbing at that level is 'elitist', then you hold an entirley different value system than I and there is nothing further to discuss in the matter. As for the endless spewing about "you have to climb it..." - bullshit - complete and utter bullshit. That would be the case if I were trying to ascertain something - anything - qualitative about the route, but for about the fourth time my oppostion to the route has ZERO, NADA, NOTHING to do with any qualitative attribute of the climb. My opposition is based solely on these three facts - refute them and I'll change my oppostion - otherwise, your argument is completely baseless: It was an incredibly unnecessary and bonehead, red-flag move in the first place. Regardless of the uncertainty, they knew they were dancing right on the edge of a wilderness area one way or the other. The plan from day one was to create 22-pitches of sport climbing that 'blissfully' required no pro.

Right now Peregrines in the NW have new chicks in the nests and are sensitive to any disturbance. Please respect the closures...

There you have it - Off and I believe in the same foundations and building upon them with better bacon.

From a guy who uses his noggin like you - hell it's all love, baby, it's all love...

Kevin, you can hold to this mistaken idea all you want - again, there is nothing to learned from climbing the climb that would in any way alter any of the three facts about it I listed above. Again, it could a new Astroman and it would make no difference to my opposition of the route whatsoever.

Oops, missed this gem first pass through - pretty much speaks directly to the heart of the problem in eloquent, straightforward, and honest words - direct 'from the mouth of innocent babes' as it were...

The impact, both environmental and access, is entirely the crowds that follow the bolts - it's a pied piper effect. P.S. 'Route-setting' only happens in gyms except when you confuse climbing for a simple, outdoor emulation of what takes place inside one. The lack of both perception and distinction of the difference is exactly the problem I keep alluding to.

My wife is a member of the Colville Tribe. We don't live in Omak, though I know the crags you're speaking of. Lot's of good rock thereabouts. Had the ethics remained those of the original crew there likely wouldn't have been an issue. The problem was entirely self-made and created by relentless, in-your-face sport climbing development. It's their land, if provoked to the point of disallowing climbing, so be it - show some respect and don't climb there. Either that, or organize, apologize for past indiscretions, show that climbing can be done with some respect for the land, and augment that with a climbing wall and on-going programs for kids at the Paschal Sherman Indian School. But again, failing that, don't simply don't climb there.

I didn't say they bolted next to cracks, I said I could find gear on lots of those pitches. I don't plan on doing more than using the same start as IB and take whatever line appears to be the best to the top.

Kevin, I don't need to climb IB to know it takes pro across a bunch of those pitches. Get real you're comparing a few feet on one pitch with 22 pitches on another. John's in, how about you...? Uh....unless you have some sort of mental telepathy to read the minds of the FFA team…..you do have to climb it to know. Please stop assuming. I have no doubt you can place gear……my question is did they put bolts next to cracks? I will find out soon enough. 22 pitches in the North Cascades with no pro - right, in your dreams - they went up there with the exlusive purpose of putting in a sport route and did. So that means you're in...?

Hate clouds judgement. I don't 'hate' sport climbers - it's more like wishing there were fewer Oregonian drivers who can't drive when you're stuck on 84 eastbound during rush hour and it's snowing. Should be fun, let's keep it down to two unless Kevin is in...

Kevin, I don't need to climb IB to know it takes pro across a bunch of those pitches. Get real you're comparing a few feet on one pitch with 22 pitches on another. John's in, how about you...?

To repeat my previous post, the only cramming down anyone's throat that's happened, happened on Mt. Garfield with a drill. I don't recall them asking anyone before beginning the cram job either. What I advocate isn't complicated - it's don't ignorantly bolt sh#t where it raises a big red flag to land manager and don't put up a 22 pitch sport climbs in the North Cascades. Now, if those two requests are too arduous and defiling of folks' sense of personal freedom then hey, what exactly would constitute a limit for you? As for the seismic level of ethical events? I put IB about on par with the Jardine Traverse for stupid or Kurt Smith's misadventures in the Valley. This is the old scope argument - "my god bolts pale in comparison to Bhopal". Yeah, they do, but we're talking climbing not bulldozers and the land managers couldn't give a rat's ass if they are visible or not - they cared that they got put up there at all. How do you suppose people have been climbing onsight FA's forever? You manage risk, you take your chances. And no - I wouldn't take a drill with me. I also wouldn't actually climb IB - I'd start at the same start and work whatever line appeared to be the best line to the top. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. Fair enough. This will likely be my last post on the matter as well. Bill, I have considered and reconsidered my opinion on this. Each time I come down to the same bottom line: It was an incredibly unnecessary and bonehead, red-flag move in the first place. Regardless of the uncertainty, they knew they were dancing right on the edge of a wilderness area one way or the other. The plan from day one was to create 22-pitches of sport climbing that 'blissfully' required no pro. There are no other facts I need to know to come down squarely on the side of those who strongly oppose it. To do otherwise I might as well start gridbolting the columns out at Beacon.

The 60's were not clean and free climbing hadn't firmed up with the ethics that ruled the 70's until the very end of that previous decade. Which leads us to... Jay's latest attempt at revisionist history. In fact, the overwhelming majority of climbers in the 70's - get set - actually did live and climb those ideals - certainly I and every human I ever climbed with in that period did. I also distinctly remembering hearing "falling" all day long at Eldo, the Gunks, and everywhere else we went - it wasn't until something like '81 before I heard someone yell 'take' for the first time. What do you suppose what average ratio is heard between those two yells these days? And please, Jump on ST and ask Jello, Werner, JStan or any of the old crew over there if it was just an illusion of an ideal, I'd love to watch that slapdown...