JosephH

Three blind Vodka tests and one blind Brita/Vodka test. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=3201973&page=1&ROS=true http://www.slate.com/id/2106004 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/26/dining/26wine.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=5913ec796f54a33c&ex=1264482000 http://www.monzy.com/?p=238

No, actually I did note that. But I've been climbing for long enough to make that type of judgment call. Sort of like not needing to wade through twenty-two thousand lines of assembler to make some basic 'value' statements about programming in it.

Nice - one place I still haven't made it to that's on my 'greatest hits' list. I did put some routes up in Glenwood Canyon back in the day so I did get some good 'hands on' with pegmatite bands. But a 100' feet of it - that is seeing god.

It's basically all about 'illegal employers', not 'illegal immigrants'. The Republicans would much prefer you focus your anger on the latter. 'Illegal employers' shift the true costs of employment on to taxpayers - it's the ultimate free lunch for people who care more about money than their country. A $1000 dollar per day fine per worker employed illegally and criminal charges against HR, plant, and division managers would shutdown the problem in the corporate space. For home, small and medium businesses it more comes down to a matter of patriotism - do you put your wallet or your country first. Given the preponderance of business owners and corporate executives are Republican it's an ironic bit of a contrast between their words and wallets.

For me it's the fact that both are in established climbing areas. IB flirts with a wilderness area and if someone wanted to establish a new Potrero-like sport area there they damn well should have contacted the land managers of record and sat down with them ahead of time. It's just common sense and courtesy. For myself lines like those going up on the Hulk at all grades are much more representative of the spirit of what this kind of climbing can be about. Thanks much for the heads up - given the history up there I'd bail before using pins.

You are equally free here to laud the exceptional qualities and bleeding edge attributes IB lends to climbing. I don't need to climb a 22 pitches of bolts to make 'value statements' about its existence or the trade-offs of establishing such a route where land managers would take exception to it.

Yes you are. Mt. Garfield is the only thing bleeding when it comes to IB. There is nothing exceptional about it except the extent and length of its medocrity and mendacity.

Hawk, trust me - I wish it were that simple. And, yes, the Nose was freed by using rap-placed bolts and El Cap is a wilderness area. Would I personally have done it on either the Nose or Prusik - no. But again, I'm not so quick to judge at that bleeding edge or assume there are never exceptions worth making. My concerns revolve more around efforts to make those exceptions the norm. The easiest way would be to simply avoid all such exceptional situations, but we both know that isn't particularly realistic as Harding, Jardine, and Hill have all shown.

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.

PM sent...

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.

Where do you think that Supersafe came from we used on the FA of Lost Warriors...? Ebay, dude! It was part of a batch of five ropes from a guy in PA.

Thirty bucks plus shipping in this case...

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.

No I'm not - looking for a top rope and that 50m sounds fine. I'll take it.

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...