tvashtarkatena

And they'll have zero say re most of the regulations they enforce. Much of that is decided much higher. I believe in freight trains, and I also believe in being in the drivers seat. We've just seen that happen right here in Washington - we took control of the freight train. Fuck you 41 years of waste and cruelty called the Drug War. This issue is no different. The Icicle may eventually become a pay per view amusement park, but only if the public lays down and takes it. The NW Pass lawsuits, should they prevail, will provide another example of taking control of the train. Agencies often respond to focused pressure - who wants to deal with the hassle? This can and has thwarted agendas established in far away places by people who know little about our state and care less about the climbing community.

Right now I follow the rules and permits to a t, even when I don't like them. If the pendulum swings this way, I'll poach the shit out of the "managed" areas. Bootlegging the Enchantments has gotten increasingly difficult as the FS headcount has blossomed. Programs like that tend to find and plug the holes over time. Not that I would ever go in there without a permit, mind you. Patrolling a roadside climbing area is far easier than the backcountry, so the FS could lock the place up pretty air tight and there'd be no escaping it. If you doubt this, I present to you the NW Forest Pass! If the program proves to be 'cost effective', it will be quickly franchised elsewhere. That's the way it works. I don't fault the local climbers who support this for their efforts or intentions. They are guilty only of naivete, and that's certainly no crime.

I agree on both points. Nothing pisses me off more than a dook sculpture iced with unburned paper, unless that sculpture has a fire ring as a base. The reality is, of course, that there is seldom a ranger around when a rare chipmunk disturbing deuce is being dropped, so education is the key. Why people STILL have to be potty trained how to shit in the woods is beyond me, but whatev. I question hiring a full blown cop for public education, if that's the only objective. It's not, obviously. Anyone can teach generation Y how to poo without disgusting the rest of the climbing community, even if their fawning parents didn't.

Exactly.

I drink my own urine. Light and fast! I'm afraid of hanging food these days, since the last time I did the FS confiscated it, er, actually they stole it for personal use, then told us the only reason we weren't dinged for $200 was that our confiscation wasn't performed properly. At least a bear would have left his calling card. The offending ranger didn't even bother to leave a note. That area below Snow Creek Wall is chock full of sensitive plant life. It's all dead (it's basically an enormous avi debri hell), but still. And Dog forbid climbers should trample the debris fan at the base of the wall itself. SUPER SENSITIVE! This program represents a disturbing precedence for what are essentially road side climbing areas in general. Since these places probably get more visitors than any other climbing related place, the fee potential here is huge and untapped. An already heavily staffed district office that can't even pay for its own MUCH NEEDED NEW POSITIONS would be insane to keep giving this outdoor product away for free. But hey, climbers got to participate in a roundtable (after the fact). Funny, the FS didn't bother to consult the climbing community before it made this decision, when such input would have actually made any difference. Hmmmm. Sounds like the community is already being managed pretty effectively. Forgive me if many years of dealing with spectacular public policy disasters have made me somewhat dubious regarding what is promised versus what actually winds up happening, particularly over the long term. I know there are good people in the FS. This sounds a lot like other slippery slopes, however.

I'm left wondering about all the rare plants (lichen? poison ivy?) being trampled and how many rare chipmunks are being disturbed from all the climbing ruckus. The goats certainly seem happy with us. The high country, sure, but in the Icicle? Hmmmm. More details on that? Some actual data, even? The position sounds like a roving sign kiosk. Wouldn't, you know, a stationary one in the right place 24/7 be a bit more to the point? And cheaper? The state's money would be better spent targeting climbing gyms for re-education than a few bouldering areas, I would think. Get these indescriminately pooing hipsters in their spawning grounds. It's likely gym owners would get on board with the poo-ducation program if they were aware of the problem and asked. But hey, more cops (and more bloated district FS offices)! It's the American way.

Thanks for the post. I don't frequent the bouldering areas, but I haven't seen much negative impact anywhere else in the Icicle. The trails are a little more burned in (no pun intended), but it's substantially the same place I've been climbing in for the past 30 years. In other words, this seems like a redux of the Boston Basin Bear Canister regulation - when was the last time anyone saw a bear in there again? Ie, solving a problem that doesn't really exist. Government agencies come up with problems to solve all the time - the War on Drugs comes to mind. That doesn't make them real, nor does it justify the particular action being proposed. If the program continues, I suspect these nice, brochure-handing out rangers will sooner or later become what they actually are: cops with a ticket book who will herd overnight climbers towards the expensive and crowded campgrounds or, when they are full, which they always are high season, out of the Icicle entirely. This issue applies to out of towners only, of course - hence one explanation, perhaps, for the very different attitudes between locals and non regarding this substantial geographic increase in enforcement. If you're a local, camping, or lack thereof, isn't an issue. Think about it.

As I mentioned, if it was a substitution for two clueless positions, I'd probably be for it. It's not - it's two more cops in the already most heavily policed wilderness in WA. If I trusted the FS to have the same reasonable culture as Rainier's most excellent climbing rangers, I might feel better. I simply don't, and that's based on experience. I see this as a way to police the Icicle in the same way the Enchantments are policed. No thank you. The National Park system also doesn't exhibit the same 'monetize everything' ethic as the FS. I don't trust it. Also, rangers are not the best solution for a poo problem - they're almost never there. Read on for better alternatives. The Icicle is vastly different from the Cirque in a number of ways. 1) The Cirque is remote and spread out. Privvies would not work there - you'd need 20 of them (no one's going to tiptoe that far to poo). That would only destroy the wilderness character of the area. Also, the Cirque HAS a real poo problem. In contrast, the Icicle's bouldering area poo problem, if it exists (I haven't seen a poo problem in the Icicle, and I've been climbing there for over 3 decades - but I don't hang out at the bouldering areas, either), is very concentrated and near the road. These two areas are not in the same scenic universe, nor do they share the same level of wilderness character (the bouldering areas are essentially some rocks and some trees next to a road). Privvies would probably be a good solution at the bouldering areas. 60K (2 x 2) should cover that cost handily, I would think. 2) The Cirque is very wet, the N side of the Icicle is not. Lonesome Lake (500' below the Cirque) is closed for camping due to fecal contamination - most likely from the Cirque above. There is little opportunity for that same level of contamination in the Icicle's bouldering areas, unless someone's got such a bad case of projectile elimination that clearing the road and hitting the creek is a real possibility. What's the solution for the Cirque's poo problem? Blue bags are the only thing I can think of. Not a popular alternative, perhaps, but I don't see anything else that would mitigate the issue as effectively without destroying the basin's stunning wilderness character. Blue bags work at Rainier and Yosemite, and it seems only right that the climbers in the Cirque take care of their own rather than gifting it to everyone else. Blue bags could be made available at the TH or through a free permit system. Compliance wouldn't be 100%, of course, but there are enough climbers out there who are no strangers to the utility of a gallon freezer bag to greatly mitigate the problem. Eventually, as in Yosemite and on Rainier, awareness would spread and the problem would be reduced. Most folks want to do the right thing, but few people we talked to in the Cirque even know that Lonesome Lake is literally a shit hole now. If they did, they would be far more likely to make the sacrifice. Plus, a properly equipped and trained climber will then be able to poo anywhere as the need strikes - on a department store floor, whatever, without a trace. Now that's real freedom. I do appreciate the difficulty of creating employment in a small town, BTW.

Stunning.

Run it like a business. Market outdoor products. Welcome to the new, free market FS. Coming to a beautiful and free climbing area near you. This business has guns and a prison system, however. Let's monetize together!

I'd still like to know what problems these rangers are going to solve and how that success will be measured. Fire rings? OK< that covers the first week of employment. Rescues? We've that covered with SAR and the military. Maintaining anchors? Come on. I'd also appreciate it if the opinions of those who know the Icicle and oppose this move based on numerous negative experiences with the FS both locally and in other states not be shouted down with the ITS A DONE DEAL or whatever. It's not a done deal. It's a two year demonstration project, you know, like the NW Forest Pass. We laid down on that fleecing operation. The FS, if it measures the 'success' or 'productivity' of these new ranger positions at all, will measure what it can measure - fees and fines collected being the easiest number to come up with. The FS new philosophy has been to 'run it like a business' - and 'market outdoor products'. Well, the public wilderness is not a product to be sold. The FS may play nice at first, but eventually I wonder if it'll just be two more cops putting up no camping signs on the last remaining free sites on the Icicle and ticketing accordingly. No bootleg camping in the Icicle leaves two choices - driving to another area (not the most environmentally friendly policy) or reserving a site at one of the Icicles crowded Campgrounds and paying up. Goodbye spontaneity. If the FS was substituting two of its ground level factotums for more skilled climbing ranger positions, that would be one thing. If the FS had exhibited the same flexibility and autonomy of, say, Mt. Rainiers climbing rangers (excellent bunch IMO) - it certainly hasn't in the Enchantments, that might soften my opposition. It looks to me like the FS is just adding two more cops, however. Why the climbing community would the inevitable reduced access and freedom to climb on the fly is utterly beyond me. If poo is a problem in specific areas (It's not in most climbing spots), spend the money to put up a privy, rather than hire a poo cop. I'm not sure how that enforcement is going to work, but that's not a job I'd want, personally. Forgive my skepticism, but after our recent fiasco at the hands of the FS in the Winds, I feel its well justified.

rings in sensitive areas do bother me. i dismantle them. outside hard sites a no trace fire is EZ.

Me neither. Not what I would have expected. Doesn't help the case for a ranger much - that, and a lack of details on how they'll actually be spending their salaries. Of course, the pro-ranger climbers have zero control over that in the end, particularly in the years to come.

The comments about real versus avatar names are unwarranted and uncalled for. They seem to be voiced solely against folks who opposed 2 more rangers in the Icicle - and this crap is coming mostly from Leavenworth dwellers. I can see why they may be invested in such an idea. It's the wrong way to go, and it will not go the way they think it will, but I do see some incentives there. Got a problem with fire rings? Then why'd you walk by them? If they bug me, I destroy them on the spot. It doesn't take that long. Mitigation complete. It's like pulling dandelions. It takes time, but it works.

The rangers will be largely enforcing nationwide regulation, decided by people several thousand miles away.

Pete, you know I'm not hip enough for the bouldering areas. I didn't even realize these tatty twiggies even ate. I haven't seen any fire pits outside the popular road camping sites. Beautiful and free, mostly. If that's a problem a couple of CCers, and I'll volunteer right now, could have them gone in a morning. It's most likely about 3 fire pits total anyway. If poo is a problem in some spots (it isn't in most), it seems like a privvy and some awareness might serve better than a butt cop, which seems to me to be an expensive and ineffective antidote. "Pinch it! Police!"

Whenever I climb in the Icicle, I always think to myself "If I was only being managed by a ranger, things would be so much better." If the Icicle is as beautiful and free as ever, why do we need these two make-work positions again? Pardon me if the smoke alarm up my ass is going off, but 'replace bad anchors'? What WILL these rangers be doing? Pretty much what rangers do now in the Enchantments, if not this year, then the next. Rangers are cops. Particularly rangers out of the Leavenworth office. To expect some magical cultural Summer of 68 to ostensibly fill a need that, in my observation, simply doesn't exist is a leap. No thanks. We don't need climbers in the Icicle to be 'managed' by the FS.

200' rule from trail does seem like a prime example of over-enforcement that is at odds with its preservation goals. The USFS is not well loved in WY, that was pretty clear, and its not all due to the ambient libertarian spirit there, I suspect. It would be interesting to learn if and how Pinedale measures the success or failure of that rule. I doubt there's much of a feedback loop here. For our part, we may not have a 200' trail rule, but we also have permit areas that are much stricter and more heavily enforced. Me? I'll take the 200 foot rule, as silly as it is, thanks, give the two alternatives.

Some good recommendations here. I finally stitched up my old pack - at 2.8 lbs n comfy under load I didn't see enough of an improvement out there yet to warrant a switch this year, and the blow outs weren't as bad as I thought. For hauling to the base I'm just going to get a haul bag - I need one anyway.

if conditions will b like the AK range May - Spantiks or equiv. if more like BC Coast Range - something lighter. plastics are nice for extended snow trips. no skis? Sounds like work!

I have Dynafit TLT 5 Mountains, and they work quite well for all of the above. Key features to watch for if you want to climb ice and BC ski - good fit (as always), a comfortable upright walk mode (you won't want to climb ice raked forward), relatively light weight but warm enough for the conditions you plan on ice climbing in. Such a boot will be light duty for aggressive resort skiers, however. Dynafit has the One series for folks with wider feet. They're a bit warmer, too. AT boots have very narrow heels, as well. Check any boot with your crampons for fit. You don't need a quiver to enjoy these various activities with a single AT boot. Not nowadays, anyways. Single full shank boots do climb a wee bit better IMO at the expense of some warmth, but that'll double your investment. FYI I have both. I prefer singles unless its cold enough to justify a double (AT) boot. This all applies to conditions in WA, BTW.

Having played the diplomat, I can appreciate the emotions and mis-perceptions on both sides. It was a difficult episode with several outcomes, lessons attached. I think all parties are resolved to do better next time, so it seems some good came out of it. No, I don't still don't agree with the cache policy - in reality it won't prevent any climbers in the know from logistically supporting a trip where a cache makes sense. There may be several reasons why Pinedale was not inclined to take it on; I would hope the leadership there is able to separate its perceptions about us from the larger issue of a policy that endangers the public with really no benefit to the wilderness at all. Again, Pinedale has won variances in national regulation in the past - so there's clearly a process to do that, however laborious. Pinedale's refusal to even post the regulation they do have at their Ranger station (printer out of ink?) does seem odd, however. I would think they'd want folks to know to avoid such incidents in the future.

If it was Mark Twain, I might pay the celebrity auction price. 1/3 of new for well used is a tried and true garage sale standard... If I get a haul bag, I'll be looking to get about 25 haul days out of it. That's probably all the haul days I've got left in me before I haul my ass to the golf course for good. Sooo...fiddy if its a beater, 75 if its used but in decent shape sounds about right per the International Convention for Used Gear Pricing Even If Owned Previously By A Hardman

I'm just looking for a cheap beater to replace the one I sold to 2nd Ascent just before the aid climbing thing hit me.

There are two bear boxes at Big Sandy Lake. Same cache rules apply. The bear boxes are more often garbage cans, apparently. Pinedale said the space is for local campers, but they were less than a 3rd full on Labor Day, and there's no distance limit from camp to cache, so that one falls a bit short. There's reality and there's regulation. In reality, the 200 foot from a trail rule makes for lots of unnecessary new campsites. Several large, already hardened campsites 200 feet from the lake but not the trail, even if hidden in trees, are prohibited. Because the FS has not allowed some natural (slabs, etc) hardened campsites, there are far more trails than there would be if the trail rule was softened or eliminated entirely. The rule also prevents a benighted party from camping in the trail. I don't know about you, but I've been there a time or two. Instead, the USFS would prefer that you crash through the bush at night, not find a flat spot, and terraform one yourself. This system does create jobs, and jobs are scarce in Wyoming. Seems like a distance limit to lakes and streams is all you need. Lots of horse camps are right on the trail in WA - where you want them - less trail, more meadow. Or closer to the lake - their going to destroy the area between them anyway, you might as well minimize it.