Lowell_Skoog

Here are some notes from "Wonderland: An Administrative History of Mt Rainier National Park: http://www.alpenglow.org/ski-history/notes/book/catton-1996.html#catton-1996-p117 I think the Nisqually bridge has remained in roughly the same place since it was built. So in 100 years you can see how much the snout has melted back.

Hi Paul, Steve Risse was a fine rock and alpine climber, a member of the Gasherbrum IV expedition that included Tom Hargis and Greg Child. He died along with my old roommate Mark Bebie and a third climber whose name I've forgotten in about 1992 while attempting Slipstream in the Canadian Rockies. They were swept off the route by an avalanche. Donna McBain has remarried since her husband Steve's death, I believe. Donna was an early stalwart member of Women Climbers Northwest. She worked for quite a few years for the Trust For Public Lands and was instrumental in the acquisition of Peshastin Pinnacles as a state park. I've sort of lost track of Donna, but my wife and her friends keep in touch with her now and then. Donna was an outstanding rock climber. I don't think she climbs actively these days.

We fixed that 2 years ago. That must be some cairn!

What a great man. Here's my favorite quote from the CMH tribute:

You did this on the Aurora bridge? Man, you asked for it! Next time you might try using the 20th Ave NE bridge in the Ravenna neighborhood. It's pedestrian only. But then again, maybe it's not high enough. How long is your rope? You might have to un-twist half the rope at a time.

All the best, Kurt!

Not my worst sunburn, but a good lesson... Some years ago I climbed Sloan Peak with my wife and two friends. It was foggy but bright enough for sunglasses. I don't think we put on any sunscreen. We all got burned. After that I concluded that if it was bright enough for sunglasses, it was bright enough to need sunscreen.

George Bell made a good post over on mountainproject.com: If Dean Potter can prove he was given permission to climb the arch, great. I'll be glad to hear it. The Park Service will have the reddest faces of all. But I'm really skeptical that he had the sort of go-ahead that Malcolm Daly's post implies. If he did, why didn't he tell that to the press at the start?

What a sad end. Here is a link to a trip report for the Mountaineers Patrol Race ski tour, which I led in February. The tour began at the Snoqualmie Lodge: http://www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboarding/trip_reports/index.php?topic=4150.0 A small group of very dedicated club volunteers has been working to keep the lodge open and viable for several years now. The lodge was closed as a ski hill after a skier was killed in an accident while riding the rope tow. I'm in no hurry to point fingers at anybody in the club for this terrible fire.

Thanks for your perspective, Mike. It does feel strange to be taking the hard line in a discussion with somebody whose avatar is Darth Vader! I don't think of my position as vindictive, but I can see how you might see it that way. For me, the issue is accountability. As shown by the Salt Lake Trib editorial and Access Fund statement posted earlier in this thread, the issue has gone beyond the realm of climbers and the NPS. The mainstream press, the general public, and even the politicians have gotten wind of it. That world wants to see accountability. The best solution, as you said, would be for Dean Potter to apologize. I don't know how to contact him, and I'm sure he wouldn't know me from Adam, but I hope his sponsor is giving him that advice. If he won't apologize, then I think it would be appropriate to terminate his "ambassador" job. (We know that the Park Service can't touch him, due to the poorly worded regs in place at the time of his climb.) He's a public figure representing a major outdoor company, and by extension, the outdoor community. If there is no accountability from him, then we shouldn't be surprised to see the press, the public, and the politicians support tighter and more arbitrary restrictions on all climbers. The relationship between the NPS and climbers is really not the issue here, in my view. The thing has blown up beyond that. It's into the mainstream now, and if Dean Potter takes seriously his role as an ambassador, he needs to keep it from affecting the entire climbing community by taking responsibility himself, one way or another.

Normally I would agree with you, Mike. But in this case, Potter's job is "climbing ambassador" and he made the climb as part of his job. (Note the initial Patagonia press release.) I don't see anything wrong with arguing that an ambassador who has screwed up this badly should be sacked. If a park ranger punched out a visiting Mexican climber to make a statement about illegal immigration, I also wouldn't have any problem calling for him to be fired. The offense was public and has caused public damage. The only way to repair the damage is either a public apology or a public censure.

Nothing unique? Can you cite another instance in which somebody climbed Delicate Arch with full photo/video coverage, released the story to the press, and then defended what he had done? Listing the components of this event separately is meaningless. Your complaints about people not contributing to other access efforts are a smokescreen. That's irrelevant to whether Potter's Delicate Arch climb deserves to be condemned. Actions have consequences and in this case an appropriate consequence would be for Potter to lose his status as an "ambassador" for climbing. Based on recent posts, it appears that the chips are starting to fall, and the climbing community is not on Potter's side.

I don't see how that matters. A few bandito climbs that nobody in the general public ever heard of won't shield Potter, Patagonia, and climbers in general from criticism in this case.

No, I won't flame you for this. Your points are good ones. In the world of politics, there is a term called "optics." It refers to how an action appears to the casual observer, never mind the underlying principles. The optics of Dean Potter's climb are terrible for climbers. Maybe the arch won't fall over. But it's called "Delicate Arch," for crying out loud! That's how the public thinks of it. Maybe it won't be damaged much. But the relationship the public has had with this feature for years and years is "look but don't touch." Potter flouted that. Your last point is the most compelling. But Delicate Arch is different from features in other parks and monuments because 1) it is small and intimate, and 2) there is no history of its use as a climbing crag. Those factors make a big difference in how the public responds to the idea of somebody climbing on it.

Good point. I noticed the bit about the press release, but sort of forgot about it in my previous posts. It sounds like somebody in the Patagonia PR department needs to be sacked too. As Norman_Clyde wrote, this reflects on Yvon Chouinard's company, right to the top. I'd be very curious to hear what he thinks of this. BTW, I sent an e-mail to Patagonia through their website expressing my thoughts, FWIW.

It seems to me that this was not some sort of protest climb by Potter. He's not saying we should open Delicate Arch as a climbing crag. (If he is trying to say that, he's a fool. He does not understand how the public thinks of this feature.) Instead, Potter appears to be making a personal statement. He's saying it's okay for him to climb it. He's special. He's "conscientious about natures rules." He "respected the arch to the fullest." Whether the regulations were unclear is irrelevant, because he made no apologies for what he did. For this, Potter is employed by Patagonia as an "ambassador." Does Patagonia care what sort of impression their ambassadors make? If they do, they should sack him.

Dean Potter apparently thinks the world revolves around himself. Patagonia should sack him.

linky poo here Two friends and I skied around the mountain on Friday. We left Timberline about 5:15 a.m. I think I know exactly where Jeremy Buck fell. I was in the lead when we crossed a short but quite steep slope above some rocks. This was right at the base of Yocum Ridge and it was the last obstacle before the terrain got much easier. I had a Whippet in my uphill hand and a Ramer/Life-Link grip in my downhill hand. The slope was hard frozen with a minor runnel to cross. I remember calling a warning over my shoulder after crossing it. My friends did not have self-arrest grips. I was glad I didn't put mine to the test here. We all agreed that it was sketchy. We were on alpine touring gear, but I was skiing in mountain boots. In a way, it was a classic psychological trap, because the slope was not very wide and it was clear that things got easier on the other side. It was a sucker slope. I'm glad to hear that Jeremy Buck will be okay. Be careful out there.

You do realize that the picket traverses are a completely different ball game than the ptarmigan or inspiration/pyramid correct? We aren't even talking about the remotely same level of commitment or style of climbing. This is assuming you mean traversing the summits, rather than just chaining some together. If you click the link he provided, it is clear that he wasn't talking about traversing the summits. People have been "traversing the Pickets" for decades without following the top of the ridge. The ridge traverses have been done only once, and only very recently. Maybe we need new terminology to distinguish between traditional alpine traverses and ridge top traverses.

I wonder if everybody is talking about the same gully. The gully on the SW side of the peak is generally straightforward. The gully on the NE side of the peak is less so. Which one are you referring to?

Skiers who seek first descents generally play by a rule that says you need to ski the entire route, if it is potentially skiable. So this descent would be classified as a "partial."

Harder: Mt St Helens from the north. Easier: Mt St Helens from the south.

I think the Sulphide is a shorter and more straightforward day. At least on skis. The White Salmon requires some futzing around to get from Chair 8 to the head of the valley. But with the good snowpack this year it probably would go pretty well. You have to descend from Chair 8, which means you'll be climbing on the way home. Kind of a drag at the end of a long day. The head of White Salmon creek is an impressive avalanche basin. A lot of stuff comes down there in the spring. There was a sizable serac induced avalanche off the Hanging Glacier last weekend. One of those could ruin your day. With the fair weather we've been having, the Sulphide is probably more consolidated, since it faces the sun, and would offer easier travel. Plus, it's all downhill on the way home. That said, the White Salmon is a cool route. But the Sulphide is more popular for spring ski climbs for good reason.

I don't know that my mind counts for much. For many years, the conventional view has been that any route from Cascade Pass to the Dome Peak area, staying above treeline, is the Ptarmigan Traverse. Most people don't require you to climb any summits for the traverse to "count." It seems like a reasonable view to me. We don't require people who repeat climbing routes to grab every hold that the first ascenders did.

No, we didn't. On the 50th anniversary of the 1st traverse (1938) I did a one-day ski of the route with my brother Carl. On the 50th anniversary of the 2nd traverse (1953) I did a photo documentation hike of the route with three friends. No plans for commemorating the 3rd traverse (1957) at this point. I'm not aware of anybody repeating the original 1938 itinerary completely.