forrest_m

how about the west ridge of north twin sister? 5.5 on super solid rock, neat summit, 1 hour drive from seattle, relatively short approach. as alpine climbing goes, pretty mellow but gets you to a very alpine-feeling summit with great views of baker, n. cascades, etc. also, of course, the classics in the washington pass area: beckey route on liberty bell (5.7), s. arete on s. early winters spire (5.5). South face of the tooth near snoq. pass is also an easy day from the car. all of these are "alpine" climbs, but just barely... certainly no more committing than snow creek wall.

nwdiver: chalk one up for the good guys. On the other hand, forgetting your rope in the parking lot *is* a bonehead move. Actually, it might *define* bonehead move. It doesn't make you a bad person, or even a bad climber. I once left the gas cap on top of my car and drove on for four hours 'til the next gas stop. Doesn't make me a bad driver. But definately a bonehead move. ;-)

<snip excess testosterone> Anyway, think about it this way: If I find a $20 bill on the sidewalk, I feel pretty good about putting it in my pocket. If I find a wallet with $20 in it, with ID that tells me who's it is, I don't. I think ScottP's example is the most difficult. I agree that the guy had no "right" to demand his gear back. He had made a decision to leave it behind. But his personal responsibility in leaving the piece behind has *no impact* on your personal decision to keep the booty or return it. Ethically, they are two totally separate issues. (Legally, I'm sure the cam belongs to ScottP. I think I would've given it back, but that's me) Finally, in the interest of full disclosure, I should admit that when I was in college, several friends and I made a habit of driving out to Index early on Monday mornings for the express purpose of bootying gear off of Godzilla and Princely Ambitions, and we rarely made the drive in vain. But on the one occasion that we found a note pinned to a tree describing our find and asking for its return, we finally decided that we just didn't feel good about keeping it. I didn't have it in me to feel like I was profiting off of someone's epic - at least not someone who's name I knew and might someday run into. Think about it and come to a conclusion that you are comfortable with. Forrest "reformed booty hunter"

Man, I really hate that juvenile "watch your back" attitude... don't get me wrong, I've bootied my share of gear from climbs when it was impossible to know who's it was. BUT: if you have even a *clue* to who it belongs to, don't fool yourself: you are stealing. You may be OK with this, it's your call. But don't try to justify your greed by saying "I deserve it 'cause I'm such a rad climber" or "only gumbies leave gear." Yes, leaving your rope in the parking lot or an easily removable cam in a crack is a bonehead mistake. Maybe they even "deserve" to lose their stuff as punishment. But remember: just because they "deserve" to lose the gear doesn't mean you "deserve" to keep it. Forrest

Ok, MRGT, as chance would have it, I was invited to go to last night's Red Sox game by my boss, who is a baseball nut. Since it was as close as I expect I'll ever get to a "thanks for putting in 100+ hours of overtime last month," I decided to take him up on it. My impressions? Overall, I really enjoyed the experience. The sunset over the city, the position of the bowl of the stadium as seen from the third deck, the way focus shifts to the field as darkness falls, paralleling the increasing intensity of the game. Like I said, it was a nice way to spend an evening. But I still can't bring myself to care who won or lost. (If you do care, the Sox beat the M's 2-0 under the heartless pitching of Pedro Martinez) Wait, let me check again... nope, just don't care.

try http://www.roperugs.com/ btw, found this in < 10 seconds searching Google with "rope + rug"

"Our" baseball team? You mean the team owned by a consortium of rich guys who blackmailed the city/state into building a stadium that the people voted against? Yeah, I have a real sense of pride and ownership there.

I don't know that I can dilute the cynical report... I have done the Sibley approach twice and the Eldorado/Mountaineers Creek approach like seven or eight times, so I've had ample opportunity to compare the two. In favor of the Sibley creek approach, I will say that it is incredibly scenic, and the rock and terrain on the ridgetop is neat. But if your object is to get to Eldorado, Early Morning Spire, Dorado Needle, etc. with as much time and energy left as possible, I would go Eldorado Creek every time. It's steep but direct and has an absolute minimum of screwing around on semi-technical ground. Like Steve, our first attempt at the Sibley ridge approach floundered in complicated route finding that worked to our advantage when a sudden August storm dumped 12" of snow. (Our advantage was that we were still a lot closer to the car than we would have been had we not made routefinding errors. With our improved knowledge, we were able to get to the base of the W. Ridge of Eldo successfully the second time, but even with beta it was much more time consuming than the Eldo. Creek approach. I kept *wanting* this approach to be better, since it starts so much higher than the Cascade River Road, but for quick access, I think its a false lead. But it sure is pretty up there.

OK, here's one: I don't carry a cel phone in the mountains. I know it could save my life, or my partner's, I can think of a thousand scenarios in which I would *wish* I had one. But I still choose to leave it in the car. To me, the whole point of alpine climbing (or any wilderness travel) is to be self sufficient, to be left to my own resources, even should the worst happen. (In addition to the fact that reception is limited, and so carrying the phone might only be a false sense of security. But I think I would feel the same if it were a button-sized satellite phone) I have mixed feelings about this. A friend of mine was the belayer in a serious accident on Prussik Peak two summers ago, and after a difficult descent, ran out to get help. The chopper got his partner to the hospital and he (mostly) recovered - but the kicker is that the docs said that his internal injuries were so severe that if he'd gotten to the hospital 2 hours later, he would have died for sure. (As it turned out, he tried to call for help on a phone carried by a backpacker, but was unable to get reception). Fortunately, my buddy won this race - but a working phone would have added a huge margin of safety without altering the outcome. So there any real difference between organizing a rescue by phone from the scene and hustling out to civilization to do it in person? Is there any difference besides the time involved?

I’ve been lurking on this thread since it started, and I’d like to express my appreciation at the depth and quality of the discussion so far. There have been a lot of well-articulated ideas exchanged. Let me start by stating my position: I think that the traditional, ground-up ethic should prevail at Washington Pass. The first bolts I ever placed were at Wa. Pass, and they went in (at a belay) the old fashioned way, with a hammer and a hand drill. The granite there is very hard and each bolt took over an hour of hard work to get in. This experience went a long way towards forming my opinion about bolting in the mountains: placing bolts by hand is such hard and time consuming work that it is self limiting. As many here have recognized, Wa. Pass is too close to the road for this “defense” to be effective. Retro, Stonewall and others have expressed the opinion that if the new route on S. Early Winters gets chopped, that it will send a strong, unequivocal message. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s the way it will work. W has put his finger on it – it’s about communication, or lack thereof. I’ve heard a lot of buzz about the route from the “other” side, and I think that the first ascensionists are getting, and will continue to get, enough positive reinforcement from their “side” that they will feel justified in continuing, self-righteous if the route is summarily chopped. They will see their creation as having been trashed by some crusty minority of bitter backwards-lookers. It will reinforce the notion that there are 2 sides at war with each other. The only way to short circuit this unhappy spiral is if we can collapse this whole false division into “trad” climbers and “sport” climbers. Which brings me (finally) to my real point, or question: how can we broaden this discussion to include all the involved parties? I think we’re fooling ourselves if we think that the discussion here on CC in any way is “representative” of the climbing community. I don’t know the answer, and I’d be really interested in concrete suggestions. W has suggested personal example and personal relationships. I respect that approach, but I suspect that for many the process of real dialogue is frustratingly time consuming. While I don’t personally know the guys putting up the route, I am friends with a lot of people who know them, and their attitude so far has not been very open. I'm not losing hope, but it's a slow process. [This message has been edited by forrest_m (edited 04-19-2001).] [This message has been edited by forrest_m (edited 04-19-2001).]

Jedi - thanks for the test info... that squares with a suggestion a friend of mine made which is that the problem wasn't in the plastic of the bottle or the lid, but in the styrofoam sealant ring that is incorporated into the lid... I didn't even know there was such a thing, but it doesn't surprise me that gas fumes and styrofoam didn't mix well. Anyway, it was only a problem after about 4-5 weeks, and even then it didn't make the fuel unusable for the XGK. I was really impressed with the pop bottles as a way to carry extra fuel - light, cheap, durable, and you can crush them in your pack after they are empty.

Paul - I guess I fall halfway between your categories, but anyway I can give you the approach/descent beta... We attempted the route last August. We should have known better, since the temperature was way too high, but we climbed to the base of the upper couloir anyway, before turning around and running for our lives from the truly awe-inspiring rockfall. If the thermometer isn't dropping below freezing at night at the highway, you should save yourself the effort of the approach. Anyway, a week later, we did the approach over Wooley Shoulder, so we were able to check out the descent, etc. pretty well. The short answer to your question is "yes, you have to do a carry over." That whole area is very abrupt - big flat valleys with sudden huge cliff bands. There is no way you could traverse back around without a serious epic. The good news is that the route down the backside is fairly mellow, though it's not a pushover. There are some icecliffs at the bottom that you have to negotiate. When we were on our way up to Wooley Shoulder, we ran into some guys who had turned around on the "snow walkup" route (same as the Humble Horse descent) because of danger from the seracs caused by the warm temperatures. There are some great bivy spots close to the route, in the last rock island before the glacier. It took us about 4 hours to reach the bivy from the road, so conceivably you could leave your stuff here, and hike up the next day from the road to pack it out... we chose to roll the dice and not bring any shelter, just our sleeping bags, figuring that with the short approach if bad weather came in, we could suffer til dawn and hike out, so our climbing packs weren't too heavy. In very cold conditions, it might be feasible to do the route in a day from the car, but you absolutely positively want to be off the icefield before the sun hits the cliffs above. It is very exposed to rockfall, and because the cliffs above are so steep, you don't even hear the airborne rocks coming until they punch a crater in the ice nearby! Good luck, it DOES look like a great route, definately on my list to come back to. If you do get up it, write up a trip report. I'm a little suspicious of the description in the Dougherty book, he makes it sound a little too casual...

For tower climbing, you absolutely must not miss Moses Tower, in Fischer Canyon in Canyonlands National Park. Even driving there can be a bit of an adventure. Primrose Dihedrals is the classic route here, goes free at 5.11+, but mid 5.10 plus aiding the bolt ladder will also get you up. 5 stars! Special descent beta: from the bolts on the shoulder below the summit, 2 60 meter raps down the old Beckey N. Face route will get you to the ground - fast and easy. On castleton tower, the Kor/Ingalls is a full on old-school 5.9+ struggle. Very satisfying, but don't be surprised if you're sketchin' out on a route put up in the early '60s! We rapped down the N. Face route a few years back, it looks very very nice. Fine Jade tower (the next tower e. from castleton) has gotten a lot of press lately, also looks nice. For cragging, if you're looking for climbing like Indian Creek but less crowded and less regulated, try the San Rafael Swell. Look for the route "Barbeque Bomber" in the guides, the whole buttress (I can't remember the name) is excellent and you can camp right at the foot of the wall! Have a great time!

Here's the text of the letter I sent off today. (I think it's useful to see other people's letters on this issue, cause I've found it's really hard to touch on all the important issues in a short) I tried to pitch it for a republican committee, note the emphasis on fiscal responsibility! Dear Sir, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Forest Service “Demonstration Fee Program,” and to voice support for a significant increase in Forest Service (USFS) recreation budgets. Please include this letter in the record for Public Witness Testimony on April 16, 2001. The current fee program is misguided, both in the details of its current implementation and in the underlying idea that one cannot use public lands – in any form – without paying some sort of fee. I believe that there is a place for user fees: I have purchased “Sno-park” passes annually for ten years and I regularly pay the fee to use Forest Service campgrounds. However, the most basic right to walk on public lands should be available to all citizens free of charge. The finances of the USFS are widely recognized as being in bad shape. The agency is under great pressure to become less wasteful – and to do so in a visible way. However, rather than undertake serious reform in its finances – such as the hundreds of millions of dollars the USFS has lost and continues to lose on timber sales – they have instead focused on such minor income streams such as Recreational Use Fees to try to demonstrate to Congress that they are cleaning up their act. Since it is the only action they are taking, they are eager to show that it is a success, even if this means stifling public outcry through deceptive statements and outright untruths. The Forest Service’s conduct has been disingenuous at best. In dealing with Congress, the USFS has used revenues from the fee demo program as evidence that they are saving money by passing costs directly to the user. But in their marketing campaign to attract public support for the program, the USFS claims that fees will result in increased funding for maintenance and construction of trails and parking facilities. The truth is closer to the former. Money from the fee program goes into the General Fund, and no overall increase in recreation funds has materialized since the initiation of the program. Yet the USFS knows that they must prevent a public outcry if the “demonstration” program is to be considered a success. Thus signs claiming that “fees pay for this trail” continue to appear at trailheads throughout the country. Particularly grievous is the process by which the fee demo program was introduced: USFS literature claims that the “demonstration” in “fee demonstration program” is to determine the level of public support for the concept of direct user fees. The existence of a hefty fine for non-payment of the fee makes this data highly suspect. Nevertheless, the USFS continues to use these statistics as “evidence” of widespread public acceptance of the program. Please defend the rights of all Americans to make the simplest uses of public lands without additional fees. We already own these lands, and the maintenance of basic access to them is a legitimate priority for government spending; in fact, such spending is essential to the goal of good stewardship. Sincerely, Forrest L. Murphy

On Adams, I highly recommend either of the north side routes (Adams Glacier, in Vol. 1 of Nelson/Potterfield or Lava Glacier in Vol. 2, both also in Vol. 1 of the Beckey Guide) The approach is a bit longer but you'll likely have the whole side of the mountain to yourself. It's really a beautiful place, with high meadows and lakes and super views of Rainier just to the north. Both routes are moderately steep and can be a walk or pretty challenging depending on whether you do them in May or September. (Later in the year = more difficult) The south side routes (Mazama Glacier, S. Spur, etc.) are always a zoo, there are literally hundreds of people on the S. Spur on a sunny weekend. If you want more details, I posted a trip report on the Lava Glacier Headwall in the trip reports section of this website last fall. btw, I second the recommendation for the North Ridge of Baker, or if you want something not-very-technical, the Easton Glacier [This message has been edited by forrest_m (edited 04-08-2001).]

Not to jump all over Craig, but I also think it's pretty narrow minded to label all opposition to the fee program "selfish." There's a lot more at stake than a $10-a-year sticker. Here's what I see as the basic issue: what's wrong with using general tax money for things like trail maintenance? Even if only a portion of the population uses this government service, this is true of MANY services. We elect a government, they then decide how to spend the money. There's plenty of things the government spends money on that I personally see as unnecessary, but I still pay my taxes - and then vote for candidates who more closely represent my views. Until all the hawkish citizens who support such things have to pay a "user fee" to finance US military intervention overseas, I will continue to object to blanket user fees for using national forest lands that I already own. There's more: why are some of the biggest resort companies lobbying so hard in D.C. for this to go through? It's because they want to establish a precedent for "pay-only" areas of the national forests. And what about the sneaky, circular way the forest pass in implemented: they establish a fee and charge a big fine to people who don't pay it. Then they use the statistics of payers vs. non-payers to "prove" to congress that the program has public support. And what about timber sales? The forest service spends more money building roads than it receives from selling timber rights to the lands that those roads service... and they want to charge hikers a user fee for running a weed-whacker up the trail once a year? And what about those signs on the trail claiming that the fee money goes back into trail maintainance? Bold faced lies. The money goes into the general fund and there has been no overall increase in funding for trails/trailheads. Look it up! It goes on and on! Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to inform themselves about this issue, whatever their final opinion is.

Couple of Index stories: Must be 10 years ago now, my friend Steve was leading Kite Flying Blind for the first time. Neither of us had been on it, but the book described it as a "sport climb"; accordingly, Steve racked only quickdraws. To his chagrin, he discovered that the bolts ended about 30 feet shy of the belay, since the blockier terrain could be protected with gear. He decided to go for it anyway, since it seemed to get a lot easier. (It's about 5.8, the bottom of the route is 11b). So up he went, no problems until he grabbed a big jug right at the lip of the belay ledge... it looked solid, but after holding long enough for him to commit his weight, ripped off. Steve was off for a 60+ foot fall, by far the longest either of us had personally witnessed. I had time to wonder whether the bolt would hold and to marvel at the fact that his high-pitched scream warbled and his arms and legs windmilled just like in the cartoons. It yanked me a good 15 feet off the ground, level with the first bolt. It's a good thing I wasn't tied into an anchor, since the handhold he pulled off hit the ground right where I had been standing, and would have killed me, helmet or no... The scar on the rock where the handhold ripped out is still visible, on the left edge of the ledge! A few years later, we arrived at the lower wall late in the day, planning to go up the first two pitches of Godzilla (a burly 10a crack) so we could throw a toprope on Jap. Gardens. Just as we came around the corner, there was a tremendous clatter and a scream. A guy was hanging head down with his head a bare 6 inches above the ground. Turns out he and his partner were in the Army, and had recently learned basic climbing techniques as part of their training. Excited, they went out and bought their own gear, and on their first day off, drove up to Index. The guy who fell had selected Godzilla as his FIRST EVER LEAD!!! Somehow he made it up to where the layback gets serious, then pitched after a shake-fest of epic proportions. He pulled both pieces in the crack above, fell to the bottom of the crack, hit the ledge and tipped upside down, continuing towards the ground head first. He zippered all his lower pieces, and the only thing that held was the big block with slings on it. I mean, the block was the only thing his rope was clipped to *at all* after the fall! He was not seriously injured, though he suffered many minor cuts and bruises - true evidence that God protects the innocent.

We walked past the base of the N. Butt of Fury in '99 (the record snow year) and there were huge, Alaska-style double cornices on much of the route, especially the last thousand feet. Needless to say we abandoned that plan... It looks like a great climb, be sure you have the beta figured out for the descent because it's long and roundabout getting back to Luna Pass from the summit. Regarding the carryover, I think if one was fast, it would be possible to camp at Luna Pass, descend to the base of the route in the morning, climb the route in a day with light packs and return to luna pass by nightfall. Not having to carry all your gear over would make this more feasible and this would minimize the back-tracking.

My friend Marshall and I climbed the E. Ridge of Inspiration over 4th of July weekend in 1996. This is one of the best routes I've done in the cascades, the kind of thing that reminds you why alpine climbing is worth the suffering. The pitches on the ridge are fabulous - super exposed, challenging (solid 5.9) and great rock. I'd say that early summer is better than late (especially this year) because the more of the upper basins that are snow-covered, the better, both for easy travel and water at camping sites. '96 was an average snow year and there was no significant 'schrund problem getting to the climb. The crevasses on the glacier were already mostly open. (We blew the descent and instead of coming down the W. Ridge route descended to the Deg.-Insp. col and had a very difficult time getting back across the 'schrund-crevasses there. This sucked, be sure to get the descent right!) The climbers trail from the end of the Goodell creek (abandoned) logging road up to treeline is actually pretty good, but it fades into the brush the last thousand feet. The problem is finding it again on the way down. We ended up paralleling a drainage downhill sharply to the south of where we knew the trail to be, then, once sure we had descended enough, cut straight across the hillside to find the trail. Watch out for getting sucked down the drainages, they all cliff out down low. The trail is definately worth the effort it takes to find! One final note, don't be too ambitious about your plan, many people go in there planning to "knock off" multiple peaks, but usually after the approach and one climb, people are too beat to make a second attempt! Good luck. On a related topic, does anyone have any experience approaching the other side of the Southern Pickets, i.e. N. Face of Inspiration? Are there any tricks, or do you just have to resign yourself to the hateful bushwack? (Or wait for a heavy snow year - in august '99 [the super snowpack year] we descended Access Creek from the Northern Pickets and had glissadable snow on avalanche debris almost all the way down to the Big Beaver trail!!!)

I've always seen it done with 1" webbing. Better for walking and also maybe nicer to the trees? It's usually mounted with a slight modification to the system that bronco describes: 1. Tie one end of the webbing to tree #1 and tie a small loop at the far end 2-3' from tree #2 2. Construct an anchor with a separate piece of webbing on tree #2. 3. Put an old oval biner on both pieces. Tie a loop in the end an old cordalette and clip it to the tree biner. Pass it through the webbing biner, back through the first biner and reef for all your worth, then tie it off. The "poor man's z-pulley" helps take extra slack out of the system and allows you to re-tighten it easily as the componants stretch out, and also to remove it when you're done.

Definately both! I know that a lot of top climbers are very serious about slack-lining, but I think it's training in the same way that stretching is part of training - a supplement to more "hard" forms of training like fingerboards and walls. Really works on balance, coordination and focus, but doesn't work your muscles that much (although I've found my abs are often sore after a session). On a recent trip to patagonia, we were sharing a basecamp with yosemite superstar Dean Potter, and he swore by a routine of 2 hours of slack lining a day + bouldering to stay in climbing shape during the long spells of shit weather. They had this amazing network of slacklines set up all around their tents, up to 10 feet off the ground, he would absentmindedly spend an hour or more walking around without touching the ground - while chatting with whoever was around. (Probably that's why Dean's a 5.14 climber; I feel good when I can stay on 30 seconds.) ;-)

Larry, I'm guessing that you want this photo for production purposes, not because you're trying to climb the mountain? There's a photographer named Will Landon who has published a book called "Rainier Panorama" (Falcon Press) full of spectacular aerial views. There is also a poster available at local climbing stores and poster stores with a dawn aerial view of the mountain. I'm sure you could track him down through the publisher. Good luck.

The difference is *not* just the diameter of the ropes. Of course that's part of it, and twins are usually thinner than even the thinnest half ropes, but not by that much. The way I understand it, twin ropes are formulated (through different types of nylon? weaving? relationship of core and sheath? only your rope engineer knows for sure) to be much stretchier than an apparently similar half rope, even if they have similar diameters. That way the impact force of both twins together (totalling about 16mm in total diameter) is still within acceptable limits while giving greater resistance to being chopped. In contrast, the half ropes are each individually designed to essentially function as a single lead line, with the other as a "backup." Thus, clipping them both (i.e. twin technique) can lead to unacceptably high impact forces. The thing to remember in wading through all this stuff is that the big danger is impact force - none of these ropes is likely to *break* under a fall, but mixing and matching technique (i.e. using half ropes for twin technique) may boost the forces outside the range that the rest of your climbing gear (harnesses, carabiners, your body) is designed to deal with.

There was a pretty good discussion of this topic a few months back, here's the thread: http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/ubb/Forum9/HTML/000013.html

Another vote for the Arcteryx Nozone. I just got back from 3 months in south america, and I took the Nozone as my only pack, and I am a satisfied user. Most packs that try to "do it all" end up doing nothing really well, but this is an exception. Consider the extremes: I used it to carry 80+ pounds, including climbing gear and skis and food + fuel for two weeks. It was maxed out, but tolerable, as comfortable as you could expect for the weight (and I mean compared to any pack, my dana astralplane included). Later, took out the framesheet, put on the minibelt and compressed the straps and used it for light & fast day climbs and it did not feel ridiculously big. Usually when you try to squish down a bigger pack you end up with a bulging hefty sack or all you gear in a fat bottom, but the internal compression straps on the nozone do a great job of reducing the overall volume evenly. And Arcteryx stuff is built bomber. Two thumbs up.