JosephH

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...

Exactly, I do know one of that crew and no bolt would have gone in on the line if there was any conceivable way of using pro. When they sink a bolt, whether on the Nose or on Prusik you can count on it being pro of absolute last resort on a mixed free trad pitch. As for it being drilled on rappel, I don't think anyone on earth to my knowledge has drilled on lead above 5.12. I suppose I should demand that of them, but I'll pass. They tried every single possible avenue of advancing on pro on that last pitch before resorting to a bolt. That's exactly how I trad climb: gear first and fixed pro as protection of absolute last resort. That is trad climbing - there is nothing whatsoever imperfect about my ethics. And if you're trying to contrast the traditional use of a couple of points of fixed pro in trad climbing on a route that definitely pushes limits of trad with a 22 pitch wholly-bolted sport route - and use the 'elitist' argument to boot - well, you way beyond misguided in your argument. There is nothing gray about either route, one is a stellar trad route with a final mixed pitch, the other is a 22 pitch red flag in the face of land managers of wilderness areas. The only 'imposing' that has gone on in this whole matter went down on Mt. Garfield with a drill in hand.

Then they are complete and utter dicks for jeapordizing access and doing it in a highly visible way within the federal agencies dealing with the wilderness act. They still are as far as I'm concerned for attempting to do such a route that close to the wilderness boundary even if they thought it was just outside. It cound only serve to put the FS on notice that that intent is to do more of the same if at all possible. It was and is a completely stupid move as far as relationships with land managers is concerned.

Oh, and that issue of Climbing that focused on history and controversy and which specifically highlighted an article on IB represented less national exposure than DA?

I'll bite, IB, in September - on gear only. Kevin, you should get in on this... I will have already climbed it. Not the way I'm proposing, and hell, you'll have a leg up on us doing a trad ascent. Too early to say, yet...

I'll bite, IB, in September - on gear only. Kevin, you should get in on this...

Nothing could be farther from the truth, Off. I have nothing but admiration for boulderers and always have since early Gill days. Boulderers are taking risks and are totally self-reliant in their endeavors - and the don't dog routes on top of it. I also have no problem with mixed routes, they've always been part of climbing. The problem I have is exclusively with sport climbers. Sport climbing over twenty five years, in combination with gyms, has been a complete and absolute and unequivoval plague on the landscape. A vast majority of folks of 'climbers' today are wholly bolt-enabled and risk-averse and almost none of them would have been climbers back in the day. I make no bones or apologies about it - my clear and abiding preference would be that they weren't 'climbers' today. Again, this 'revolution' is entirely mechanized, and has led to crowding, access problems, and relentlessly threatens trad crags and routes everywhere. When plurality and 'individual freedom' are wholly predicated and based on the application of battery technology and stainless steel to pristine rock instead of personal responsibility I am no believer at all. And hey, I may well be the last guy on earth taking an unequivocal and unvarnished stance against sport climbing, but so be it. The true fascism (or maybe you prefer communism, which is quite a bit more accurate) happening is happening at the point of a drill.

Well, John, if that's truly the case then they don't have much of a collective leg to stand on when it comes to honestly dealing with access issues as they arise with the FS and other land managers up north. Nothing about calling on the community up north to issue a letter of apology or collectively chopping the route is forcing anything on you. People wonder why the FS takes such an agro stance with climbers and why they stick to blanket decrees, closures, and bans - it's both because of incidents like this and their perception climbers are simply banking on them being too resource constrained to do enforcement - that climbers can't be trusted to honor the law. When confronted with those attitudes they predictably respond with more blanket edicts exactly because of those attitudes. If they felt for a minute like climbers would use some restraint, act honorably, self-police, or would actually get invovled in productive vs. antagonistic ways there wouldn't be so many non-negotiable, blanket federal edicts. IB is no different than Delicate Arch and now that land managers have the Internet all these things are immediate, cummulative, inter-regional, and inter-agency.

John, for me it's a case of NIMBY, if it were on what I considered my 'turf' it would never have lasted long enough for the FS to have found out about it. That the locals up north couldn't do the same I find disapointing. The the AF didn't immediately dispatch a letter of apology whether the route was chopped or not in a community effort I find incredulous. And if I chop something you'll know about it. I'm off the porch 3-4 times a week monitoring Peregrines. I'd love to go climbing, but I'm way out of shape as pretty much every minute of my free time is spent doing this instead so I can go climbing...

Bill, nowhere in that post, or in any other post on this topic have I ever claimed to be speaking for anyone but myself. That's what phrases like these mean: After going over an issue in my mind, it doesn't change my views, values, or opinion on a matter whether you or anyone else believes differently - especially when there are no new facts which might change those opinions. Whether you, or 99% of you, consider this abortion a stellar climb, I do not and will never share that opinion - to me it it's an enduring insult to everything I consider worthwhile about climbing (and long or short, no matter how many times you repeat it to yourself, this choss heap is never going to be 'stellar'). If indeed there really are 'thousands of appreciative climbers' for IB having been put up then I for one remain all the more embarassed for that sad fact. Again, I speak only for myself and you are free to your opinions (though I wouldn't ever call them, or the fact that you hold them, delusional). But, I do not, nor will I ever, make any apologies for either my opinions or the fact that I happen to hold this one strongly. Now again, you can say you don't share an opinion of mine - but there is nothing whatsoever 'wrong' about it just because you happen to disagree with it. I say what I feel needs to be said on this issue when it comes up to insure folks know there is another opinion on the matter, however minority. Oh, and I'm a devout atheist, so I don't really care what God's opinion on the matter is. And given I think God is just another weak construct by and for people who need pre-placed protection in life, I have no doubt whatsoever God is entirely on your side in the matter. And Kevin, the quality of climbing on IB is wholly and completely irrelevant; this isn't about that. There is nothing one can experience on the climb that is remotely relevant to my opposition on it. It could be the new Nose or Astroman and I'd be just as opposed it. The fact that it is essentially a run of overbolted choss below a couple of ok climbing pitches just makes it all the more pathetic to have pissed off various agencies over.

Careful Off - a boulderer might stumble onto this thread and want to tangle with you...

I do walk my talk in Washington, just not that far north.

Thank god they're being shown how it's done by professionals. Was this one of the IB FAs in another selfless act of community service.? Private land or not, it's always encouraging to see the right values being passed down to our children so they'll know how to treat public lands when they grow up...

Kevin, absolutely, I think this is one issue where many of us are never going to agree. There's not much RainDawg and I agree on so that's probably indicative of the level of commitment on both sides of this issue.