Bob Loomis

Hi Fellow Climbers, My partner and I went out to Banks Lake on Saturday, 9 January (last weekend) and found good conditions. Not "fat" but close to fat--as good or nearly as good as at any time in the past several years. Judging from the forecast it is likely to be in good shape at least through the coming weekend. Cheers, Bob Loomis, Spokane, WA.

Hi Fellow Climbers, Yesterday, on Thursday 23 July, I found a pair of rock shoes at Post Falls. If you can correctly identify what I found we can work together to get them back to you. You can email me at > loomis@rescue.com < or call 509.926.6766. Cheers, Bob Loomis, Spokane, WA.

Hi Fellow Climbers, Yesterday-10 January-Banks Lake was in fair shape--not great--but fair shape. Devil's Punchbowl was mostly in, and Pee Wee's Playground was fully in. Other formations like the Cable and Zenith are about 50% in. It is hard to say how long it will last--the regional forecast is a bit warmer in the coming days and the longer range forecast for the region is more rain than snow. So if your schedule is flexible and you want to get out there, the next few days might be the window. On the other hand the weather might reverse and it gets better. Who knows? I will try to attach some pictures but my technical skills may not be up to the task. Cheers, Bob Loomis, Spokane, Wa.

Hi Fellow Climbers, Thought I might give you a quick field report. Yesterday, 7 December, my friend, Nicholas and I went out to Banks Lake to see if the ice was in. It is. We ended up spending the day at the Devil's Punchbowl. There were minimal "death-cicles." The punchbowl itself is 80-90% filled in. The climb on the left--Trotsky's was in okay shape--water was running underneath, next to the ice so it was a bit hollow sounding but we each got several laps in and nothing fell down. We also replaced the old tree/bush slings at the top of Trotsky's with fresh perlon. The waterfall down below (Trotsky's something--cannot remember the name), close to the road, was not in. PeeWee's playground was mostly filled in. Miscellaneous ice was in down the road toward Coulee City. H2O2 is starting but not in, the Cable is starting but not in, Brush Bash is in, but thin. South of US 2, nothing seem in--not Children of the Sun, Clockwork Orange, etc. Warm temperatures and rain are in the forecast for the rest of the week so what we saw yesterday may be shortlived, but if it gets cold again it should rebuild fast. So, in sum, right now there is enough in to justify a first day on the ice and just get comfortable again--which is what it was for us. Hope this helps. Cheers, Bob Loomis, Spokane, WA.

Hi DRep, Starting in the mid-1990s I got it. In total I think I have had five distinct episodes on the right and one on the left. I think I have done everything possible--PT with multiple professionals, once a cortisone injection, stretching, the exercises advocated by Dr. Julian Sanders (the prior link), loads of passive rest, loads of active rest, ultrasound, supplements, massage, chiropractor, magnets, etc. Basically if it exists as a possible remedy, I have tried it. To some extent a certain low level of pain is now normal in my life. What I have found is if you do everything right--nutrition, good climbing biomechanics, stretching, resistance work in the right proportions, strategic rest, etc., you will recover, but due to the nature of climbing and the stresses it puts on your body, it will tend to want to come back from time to time. I have found that so long as the pain is kept to basically "background nuisance" I can keep climbing, but the moment it gets to be more than that I have to really dial back my activity level. Really pay attention to all the little things--good sleep at night, hydration, fish oil supplements, how you sleep at night (do not sleep on the arm whose elbow is hurting, esp. if you sleep with a bent arm--all relates to a relaxed arm with good blood flow for 8 hours a day), etc. These little things, and there are dozens of little things that go into the mix, all add up to making a big difference. Look for what corrolates in your day--ex., keyboard use and elbow pain, how you grip your car steering wheel and pain/soreness. Pay attention and eliminate or modify the things that hinder healing and recovery. In the end rest really is nature's best cure for most things that ail you--but as committed climbers we tend not to want to hear that. Cheers, Bob Loomis, Spokane, WA.

Hi Higgins and All, I have encountered this phenonena at least twice, possibly more times. One time was rock climbing, the other ice climbing. I have also read at least once of this occuring in the AAC's Accidents in North American Mountaineering. In my situations the proximate cause of the carabiner becoming rotated and thus cross-loaded to either the bolt (rock climbing) or to the screw hanger (BD Turbo Express) was just the biner "riding" up on the rope. It is a very rare phenomena, but not unheard of. After some time field testing on my own I found a simple solution--use an oval and not a "D" shaped carabiner when clipping to a bolt or screw. I made the conversion on my draws more than 10 years ago after field testing this solution and have never had a issue like this since then. Ovals are plenty strong and due to the smooth inner curve of the biner there is no "pinch point"/inflection point, or place for the biner to bind and hang up on a bolt or screw hanger. I have been somewhat surprised over the years why more climbers do not use ovals for exactly this reason. I hope I have helped. Cheers, Bob Loomis, Spokane, Washington

Dear All, Yesterday (9 February) I found a couple of small items of gear at Banks Lake. If you can tell me what I found it is yours--we can work out how I can give/ship it to you. Email me at > loomis@rescue.com < or call me at 509.710.5102. By the way the ice was still very much in and plastic as of yesterday. Cheers, Bob Loomis, Spokane, WA.

Dear All, One feature to an ice climbing harness mentioned above, but worth stressing a bit more is water absorbancy. Some polymers hold their weight in water, others less, some none at all. Over the course of a day ice climbing your harness will tend to get wet--even on a very cold day due to your body's warmth any snow, ice, melt water will tend to accumulate in your harness. This will rob you of core body heat (the harness wraps around your torso and the leg loops are next to your femoral artery), be harder to dry out at night, adds weight to your body, tends to be soaked in by your shell over the course of the day, etc. So try to purchase a harness which is made of polymers which are hydrophobic. If not, take the time to use spray waterproofing agents to your harness--the same stuff you use on your clothing. Doing so will pay a dividend. Some manufacturers advertise this property about the polymers they use in their harness composition. I support many of the other prior comments. I hope I have helped this conversation. Cheers, Bob Loomis, Spokane, Washington

Dear All, I was out at Banks yesterday (5 January) and things are coming in. The Punch Bowl, PeeWee's Playground, even the Cable, were in adequate climbing shape. The problem is the current NOAA forcast shows a warming trend this coming week--supposed to be in the high 30s F out there and raining by mid-week, then it gets cold again. So it is possible that what is in right now might fall down by mid-week. But if the forecast is wrong, etc., then next weekend things could be pretty good. Cheers, Bob Loomis, Spokane, WA

Hi Newman55 & All Others, By far and away I am not the most experienced, but I have ice climbed (mostly technical, some alpine) with some regularity over the years. I have used several different crampon configurations, starting with the old Chouinard/Selawa of the 1970s--horizonal front points, vertical front points, dual front points, trident front points, shovelpoints, monopoints, with supplemental secondary front points, without supplemental secondary front points--all over the years. What I really have found is "it depends." In other words, what you use depends on what you are doing and on conditions. If you ice climb for long enough you will find there are times when a monopoint is preferrable, and other times when another configuration is preferrable. I am a fairly conservative climber (some might go further and just say "coward" :-) ), so I am not leading super delicate, technical, thin, and fragile ice, and thus I find that most of the time dual vertically oriented front points with secondary points and no spurs works fine even if it is vertical sustained ice--i.e., what I might call a dependable "work horse" configuration crampon. To keep costs under control over the years I have gone to places like Switching Places in Canmore and purchased old pairs which I then part out to come up with alternate custom configurations. Sometimes (if weight and theft is not an issue) I will pack to the base of a climb an alternate pair of crampons--then I judge conditions right on the spot and select what seems optimal. I do that with gloves too--thin, not so thin, thick--I pick the glove combination which gives me the optimal dexterity and warmth for the conditions that day--some climbs are bone dry, others are a cold shower, etc. So in sum today I own several different pairs of technical crampons--every one of which I have modified just a bit, or in some cases a lot (welding, drilling holes to accomodate nuts, bolts and points from another manufacturer, custom cutting spanners, filing things, etc.). I would encourage you to just experiment in the field (on TR if need be) or go to a place like the Junkyards outside Canmore and solo on easy ground for a day. Try one crampon on one boot, another configuration on the other boot, modify things, try again, etc. If right now all you have is one pair of crampons, then okay, I understand. But that will change if you get into ice more. I would keep an open mind and with time and mileage on ice you will find what works best for you. I am still doing that today and I am an old, old, old dog. Cheers and safe climbing to all, Bob Loomis, Spokane, WA.

Hi All, Sorry for the delay in responding but my browser seemed to lock up each time I tried to get on this site. I am using another machine and another browser to key in these words. Someone asked a few days ago to expand on my limited and somewhat subjective field test. The short answer is that the Red Superfeet were a bit warmer compared to the manufacturer's insole as well as the green Spenco insole I was comparing to. It was not much but the warmth difference seemed real enough. So now the Red Superfeet are what I use in my ice climbing boots. Cheers, Bob Loomis, Spokane, WA.

Dear All, I support ADKMan. Over several days and a few pitches of ice climbing I would wear one boot with the manufacturer's insole, the other boot with the Red Superfoot insole, then compare against the green Spenco insole--again one boot with, the other boot without. There was a small positive difference. I estimate about a one or two degree difference, i.e. the Red Superfoot provided a small, but noticeable, positive difference. The downside is this is an expensive insole. Cheers, Bob Loomis, Spokane, Washington

Dear All, It turns out my deduction about the year of the first ascent was not too far off. A friend has a copy of Jeff Smoot's Rock Climbing in Washington, A Falcon Guide , copyright 1999. He tells me that at p. 286, it states the year of the first ascent as 1966--same three guys. The more I think about the time, their age, the equipment they had to work with, the more my respect for them grows. Cheers, Bob Loomis, Spokane, Washington

Dear All, I decided to double-check myself with respect to the deductions I made in my previous posting as it concerns the type and length of rope they likely used, as this helps to shed some light on your current discussion. In Royal Robbins, Basic Rockcraft (copyright 1971), at p. 14 he makes mention of the use of 120 ft ropes for many situations (suggests even 100 ft ropes are adequate--by the way, Kronhoeffers are shown on p. 12 of that book), but using 150 ft ropes for steeper, longer routes. Wheelock's Ropes, Knots and Slings for Climbers (copyright 1967) is more ambiguous about this transition in American climbing regarding rope length, but broadly is in line with Robbins. Thus, I could be very wrong, but it does not seem to be too far out of line to deduce that there is a good liklihood they used 120 ft goldline based on what they could afford as college students, and the "state of the art" in the PNW in the mid-1960s. So imagine yourself hiking up to Snow Creek Wall at that time facing an unknown, and still early in your career as a climber. I can imagine them looking up at their prospective route, not sure of the dihedral's length, just left to "guesstimation." I could imagine the conversation boiling down to "go until rope runs out and build a belay wherever that is." That might have been what I would have done. That could very well result in pitches of about 100 ft or so--i.e., breaking up the dihedral into several pitches not because that is the most logical thing to do by today's modern rope standards, but simply the result of what they had to work with at the time. If I am correct in my deductions perhaps in light of today's norms for rope length the need for a hanging/semi-handing belay is not even needed. I do not know, but, for instance using a 70 M rope (225 ft approximately) the dihedral might just be one long pitch--wow, wouldn't that be something! Right in line with the "spirit" of adventure, courage, and commitment they showed in the mid to late 1960s--eliminate the mid-point hanging/semi-hanging belay in favor a big solid 5.9/5.9+ lead! Where I am going is to encourage you to be thoughtful and creative. I think you might have an opportunity here to honor the adventuresome spirit those three showed and the spirit of the route by using what you know in 2012 and the technology at your disposal to perhaps "re-structure" the route and even make it a more adventuresome route. I do not know. I am only making suggestions. But I could imagine those three feeling honored and respected if this generation built upon their achievement, and in this small but tangible way kept the flame of the core of climbing alive. I am confident that the future of climbing is in good shape so long as climbers recognize it is not just a sport like golf or tennis, but something more than just athleticism--that the commitment, courage, adventure, etc., that are at the core of climbing make it different from other forms of athleticism and sport (by the way my achievements in climbing leave much to be desired under this measure, I am embarassed to say). Hope I am helping the discussion not detracting from it. Cheers, Bob Loomis, Spokane, Washington

Dear All, Maybe I can help with some thoughts regarding your concerns about rebolting the belays and the position of the belays--but if my comments are not helpful, then okay--don't beat up on me too much. First, thanks Dane, for your kind comments about Ron--I am pleased he inspired you as well. Same for Thom Nephew. Second, I agree with Dane. Do not be afraid to replace bolts that are more than 40 years old, which have been in a alpine/sub-alpine environment all that time with something stronger and better. If the first ascentionists had, had better bolts they would have used them. It is illogical to think they, upon choosing to place a bolt for a belay would then say "lets use an inferior bolt when a better one is at hand." If they had at their disposal the kind of bolts available today I am confident they would have used them. Third, with a bit of "Sherlock Holmes" and some probability deductions, we can come to some understanding of why the "structure" of this route is as it is. I looked in my copy of Fred Beckey's original 1965 guide to Leavenworth climbing--the route is not listed (I did not expect it would be, but wanted to double-check). Jim Madsen died on El Cap in 1968. The Kramer guide (1st edition 1996) states Don, Ron, and Jim as the first ascentionists. This sounds right to me because when you cross reference with the Index guide, etc., those guys were climbing a lot together in that time, plus they were friends as students at U of W (my wife as source--she says they hung around together on campus while she dated Jim). So, when did they put up the route? Likely 1966 or 1967, more likely 1967 (between Beckey's guide and Jim's death). That leads me to what rope did they use and how long was the rope? In the PNW kernmantle rope was not the norm at that time. I got my first climbing rope in 1971 in Spokane from the REI catalog--it was goldline. Kernmantle rope became the norm a few years later, but was far more expensive than goldline. Remember these guys were poor college students. It is likely they used goldline because that is all they could afford or even get their hands on in 1966/1967 in Seattle. How long was the rope? Things were in transition in that time from the norm of 120 ft, to 150 ft, due to the California/Yosemite influence, where due to the nature of the rock and routes, longer ropes were needed. But Cascade climbing in that time (the influence of shorter ropes for glacier travel was dominant), the norm was still 120 ft ropes. My first goldline was 120 ft--that was the "recommendation" at the time. So deductively (we would have to ask the surviving team members to know for sure--and they might not remember), we can surmise they likely used a 120 ft goldline. Now subtract out some rope at either end for bowlines, bowlines on a coil, or swami belt for the tie-in. Their pitches were likely in the 100-110 ft range--or shorter. Switch to today. The 60 M to 70 M, or longer kernmantle rope is the norm. If they had, had access to the ropes of today they would have used them. If my deductions are correct, then they (assuming they put up the route in 2012) may well have set up belays in different locations, and thus the "structure" of the route may well be different. In my view, I think you can re-position the anchors to take advantage of any logical features (ledges, corners, etc.), in light of today's "norm" for rope length, and still retain the "spirit" of the route--by consensus a somewhat committing, hard 5.9, which requires gear placement skills, some route finding skills, and a bit of a "leader's head." As I said previously I do not speak for those guys, nor would I pretent to, but I think the "spirit" of a route can be retained, while perhaps belays upgraded with new, stronger, more rust resistant bolts, and perhaps the hanging/semi-hanging belay(s) re-positioned to be more logical. At least the Ron Burgner I remember would likely not protest too much, if at all. As I said before I just think he would be "tickled pink" that a route he helped pioneer some 45 years ago is getting a "face-lift" and is of interest to the current generation of climbers. To alter the "spirit" of a route is something alltogether different, but that does not seem to be the direction of this conversation. I hope the comments of an old, semi-broken down climber are of some help :-). Cheers, Bob Loomis, Spokane, Washington