Climzalot

Cool. Sounds good guys. Thanks for the help.

Sorry. Yes I was talking about rapping from the WR col down onto the north side. I read your comments about being at the end of your ropes going over the 'schrund, but you also mentioned finding a better spot for the other two to cross so I was hoping that the better way would go with 1 rope. The route over Sharkfin seems like a lot longer walk. Am I mistaken? Was the snow at the edge of the 'schrund decent for bollards? Thanks for the info. Coley

I have been considering this route for the coming weekend and just got turned onto your trip report. I am glad things turned out for you guys as well as they did and nice work on sorting it all out. I was wondering how you (or anyone who's been there) think the rap from the West Ridge Col to the glacier would go with one rope? Any way to piece it together, or are two ropes definitely required? Thanks for any insight you might be able to offer! Coley

I have used the DAS Parka for 4 trips to the Alaska Range, including Denali, and think that it is a great choice. I will be using one again this year as well. For a climb that would start in the first few weeks in May I would recommend layering another light insulating layer under the coat. The Patagonia Micro Puff pullover is perfect for this piece and a few other companies make similar products. Later in the season, your base layers, softshell, and wind layers under your parka would likely be adequate. I typically recommend more of modular system for insulation as opposed to one giant layer (parka, down suit) that would go over everything. The conditions and temperature on Denali, and on most large scale expedition peaks change from the base of the mountain to high camp. Having a few different combinations of warm layers leading up to a parka is much more practical for most folks on these trips and on future adventures elsewhere in the world. The disadvantage of having feet that are too hot is excessive perspiration right? The Intuition liners are not permeable and they act as a micro VBL in my experience with them. By this I mean that even though your feet are toasty, they don't tend to sweat any more, I think less, than in regular liners that tend to wick moister away from you foot allowing for continued perspiration. The Intuition liners are the best thing out there for cold and high mountaineering in plastic boots. The liners are warmer and lighter than all others including the high altitude model that Koflach puts out. The biggest down side, besides cost, is that they do pack out after time. You can reform them a time or two successfully, but their life is limited. For this reason I would recommend against them if you intend to spend a lot of time on multi-day trips in warmer locals, and can't/don't want to afford two sets of liners. Good luck!

This just came in from the National Park. Anyone have friends in the area? Coley _________ Date: April 24, 2007, 1:00 pm For Immediate Release Climbing Fatality in the Alaska Range A climber died after an approximately 1,000-foot fall on Mt. Wake in Denali National Park and Preserve on Monday, April 23. At 6:00 p.m. that evening, the first member of a two-person climbing team was rappelling down the Northeast Ridge of the 8,130-foot peak when the fall occurred. It is unknown what caused the rappelling accident. After realizing their partner had fallen, the second climber descended to the body and confirmed the fatality. Assistance was then sought from another climbing party in the vicinity. A satellite phone was used to inform an emergency contact about the accident, who notified Denali mountaineering staff shortly before 9:00 p.m. Later that evening, the group returned to the victim and brought the body back to their camp in the Ruth Gorge. At 8:00 a.m. Tuesday, April 24, Denali mountaineering ranger John Evans flew into the Ruth Gorge with Talkeetna Air Taxi pilot Paul Roderick. After confirming the identity of the climber, they recovered the body and flew back to Talkeetna. The name of the deceased climber is being withheld pending family notification. Mt. Wake is a highly technical mixed rock, snow, and ice peak located in the Great Gorge of the Ruth Glacier. At least five other parties were climbing in the vicinity of the Gorge during the timeframe of the accident. Of note, a similar fatal accident occurred on the Northeast Ridge of Mt. Wake on April 24, 1994, when two climbers died while rappelling the peak.

I don’t feel that this venue is the appropriate place to rebut all of these comments, but I do feel as though a bit of clarification is needed so that uninformed folks aren’t given the wrong idea about a great company and a fantastic group of folks. AAI guides encouraged their clients to dump food and gear into crevasse's on the mountains... Go with a company that practices Leave No Trace and actually sticks to it... The Alpine Institute was instrumental in helping Leave No Trace to achieve 501c3 status and come to fruition as a non-profit entity. Since our early efforts to help LNT efforts succeed and become the standard for guide services and outdoor organizations, AAI has taken more steps and dedicated more time, efforts, and funds to help their staff become LNT Trainers and Master Educators than any other guides service. LNT materials are widely distributed to all members of AAI trips at a significant cost to the company. Far more important than the company's past efforts are the mentalities of the staff and our current efforts. As has been mentioned, I firmly believe our staff includes some of the most conscientious and aware outdoors users in the industry. For more on AAI’s efforts to save and preserve natural resources go here: http://aai.cc/UIAAenvironment.asp http://aai.cc/greenfuture.asp http://aai.cc/about.asp Our Director, despite certain shortcomings just like the rest of us, has made efforts and worked to enact policies that have helped the climbing community at large in ways that I am sure only a handful of folks are even aware of. With specific regard to Denali, AAI was the first guide service on Denali to test and fully implement the Clean Mountain Can on their guided trips. Every scrap of human waste and trash is removed from the mountain or dealt with in Park approved manners (pit toilets on the route). AAI’s efforts here have been widely recognized by the Park and have even been used to share current policies for waste removal and LNT on the mountain. The Park has awarded Denali Pro awards to many of our guides for their additional efforts in the areas of safety and conservation. For more on that you can read these: http://www.nps.gov/archive/dena/home/mountaineering/cmc.htm http://www.nps.gov/dena/planyourvisit/upload/2001_Mtnrg_Summary.pdf The one worthy piece of advice that Moabc4 did give was to call the Park Service and ask about guide services on the mountain. If you do, they will tell you that AAI was ranked as the top concession applicant on Denali, again, as part of the last application process in 2002, just as it was in 1992. This application process is a highly intensive and competitive process in which each company applying for a concession is required to detail every aspect of their operation (past, present, and future) and demonstrate their ability to run quality programs and take care of the mountain in the process, to name a few. For more on that go here: http://aai.cc/news_release_denali.asp ...and their low success rate on Denali Once again, with a little bit of research one would find that AAI’s success rate on Denali isn’t the lowest, quite the opposite actually. The average individual success rate on Denali is 53% overall and 59% in guided groups other than AAI. The Institute's success rate for individuals for the last nine years is 77% and for expeditions it is 84%. There are a number of reasons for this higher than average success rate, and again I invite anyone who would like to discuss the program or our company in general to contact me. Thanks also to Jason for his willingness to provide a senior guides perspective as well. ...Wages Where in the world of business is compensation not an issue? I have met very few folks that can honestly say they get paid that they think they are worth. I am not defending AAI’s pay scale (which is lower than some climbing schools and guide services and higher than others). I have been a “victim” of this pay scale for over 7 years now and I am happy to continue. Working here provides opportunities and experiences that aren’t available elsewhere in the world and industry. As I am sure many of you are aware, the guiding industry as a whole is not the most profitable of enterprises. The cost of running this company and providing these opportunities for employees and climbers, makes high, even average wages an unfortunate impossibility. But no one is forced to work here or at any guide service against their will, and we are all free to leave any time. Some do, many don’t. AAI is fortunate to be an attractive employer to many people. AAI’s range of programs, dedication to teaching, and commitment to environmental education all play a role in attracting extremely well qualified applicants each year, and we have to turn away many highly qualified individuals. Because turn-over is a fact of life in this industry and we too experience it, we have guide training programs and policies in place to assure that the quality training and instruction that we have been known for over thirty years continues. We are devoted to maintaining quality service to clients, effective teaching, and quality guiding, but also to trying to make things better around here within the company, and we openly invite any clients, climbers, employees, or friends to provide input on how we can best do that: http://aai.cc/feedback.asp, info@aai.cc To summarize this long winded diatribe, please do your homework before making accusations and claims that can affect the public's opinion of people, companies, and services. Stating opinions is one thing, as would be making first hand observations and providing factual references. There is enough misinformation floating around as it is even folks go to great lengths to spread truth and paint a perfect picture of reality. Politics will always be an issue in the guide industry, but by working to cut down on rumors, generalizations, and false claims, hopefully we can equip each other to make properly informed decisions about such things. 800-424-2249, cgentzel@aai.cc Coley Gentzel American Alpine Institute 360-671-1505

Hotfeet, I tried to send you a few comments via PM but haven't been able to get that to work. I coordinate the Denali expeditions for the American Alpine Institute and would be happy to speak with you about any specific concerns that you and/or your friend may have. Feel free to send me an email at cgentzel@aai.cc. Layton, my feelings are a bit hurt by your post, specifically the part about not trusting "them." Am I among the "them" of whom you speak? If so, where is the love and trust we once shared? Coley Gentzel

Hey folks. Good idea for a thread and I am glad that we are starting to notice, and in some cases respond to the abundance of misinformation and plain ignorance that seems to be surfacing about climbing as of late. As a climber and an employee of a guide service, I find it hard to swallow the fact that a few "climbers", and a few incidents are representing climbing and mountaineering as a whole in the eyes of the public. Thanks to the media for that. Throughout the earlier Hood ordeal we received dozens of calls daily asking for our input, opinions, and perspective on the events. This was a great vehicle to help shape the media's opinion and reporting in a few cases. However, the cumulative effect was quite small when compared to scale of the coverage. Some sort of unified effort to influence these processes, perceptions, and to speak up on behalf of the climbing community definitely seems like a good and appropriate thing. How exactly to do that I am not sure., but with collective talent and ambition floating around the board, something could materialize. Climbers, myself included of course, have never been to good at cooperation and group efforts. Perhaps this is encouraged, even bred by the nature of our sport, which requires a high degree of self-reliance, at most depending on a small group. This is especially apparent in the guiding world where we all tend to function independently from each other, with our own sets of rules, requirements, and methods for training and instruction. I have wished for a long time that there could be more cooperation between services and organizations like the AMGA. It would great to see us all pulled more closely together through these things, rather sending each of us scurrying off to our corners of safety and familiarity, ignoring the big picture in the process. Several employees, including the Directorial staff, of the American Alpine Institute called and emailed Representative John Lim prior to Tuesday's hearing in Salem regarding the bill to require MLU's. As I understand it, Lim is heading up the process and is directly in charge of creating and pushing the bill. I would be happy to provide a copy of my letter for anyone who would like to see what I had to say and possible glean some information for their own use. All the major points have certainly been covered in one form or another here previously. They key is making sure the people in charge of the process hear what you all have to say before the take action. I haven't heard the outcome of the hearing and I don't know much about the process. I will do a little more digging today if possible. Here is the address I was given to reach John Lim . The message I sent was received my an administrative assistant of sorts who assured me that the note would be delivered. As for how to reach the media, perhaps a press release of sorts that would carry the signatures of and/or backing from guide services and climbing organizations across the country, even world, would be a good way to start. I have wanted to post some sort of perspective article on our web site for a while now, but have not yet done that and may not for a few different reasons. I look forward to seeing what becomes. Coley

I am not super skilled with the whole photo posting process, but I am going to give it a shot. Here are a few images of the Bear's Tooth from the Ruth. From the summit of Barrill. From the Root Canal. From the West Fork of the Ruth. Coley

AAI should be able to work something out for you. Check your PM's!

I have used a combination of gloves up north and have had pretty good luck with the system. LIght fleece or powerstretch for around camp and fiddling with stoves and such. BD Drytool gloves for glacier travel and technical climbing when temperatures permit. BD Ice Gloves for colder technical climbing, BD Guide Gloves for when it's really frickin cold and I need some dexterity, and a pair of exped mittens for keeping my fingers alive when the crap hits the fan. Depending on the nature and length of the route I would have all or just a few of these pairs of gloves in my pack. Dry is key. Always have a fresh, dry pair handy because they will get wet. I usually have a spare pair of Drytool and Ice Gloves handy. Sounds like a lot I know, but in my opinion taking chances with your hands in a technical/committing environment is a bad idea.

Nice Daler. Thanks for the update. Good info on the #4. I can't say I would have thought to bring that along. Sounds spicy to say the least. Hopefully what little ice there is doesn't go away or get chipped off in the next few weeks. In addition to a handful of small pitons, and #4 what other gear is useful? Will the usual small cams, nuts, and short screws get the job done? Thanks again.

Anybody ever climb it? Seems as though I have heard pretty mixed feedback as to the difficulty. As with any thin/mixed route I am sure the difficulty varies with ice conditions. What's the concensus? Pretty freakin hard and scary, or mostly doable by mere mortals? Is the protection reasonable with the right gear? Thanks.

Any one route in particular you were scoping out? Some routes on Hunter could be good in June while others not so good. I have only climbed one, the West Ridge via the Northwest Basin, and we climbed it in early May. In researching the route beforehand and talking with others who had been on it, it sounds like more often than not, early is the way to go, especially the last few years which have been pretty mild with regard to temperature. There are a few south facing sections on the ridge and sun does some pretty serious work on them as the season progresses, even if it is cold. We had pretty post-holey, sloggy conditions down low getting through the basin, but once on the ridge the conditions were excellent. No one else ended up getting up the route later in the season for a variety of reasons ranging from weather to bad snow conditions. I think early would be better but depends on the year eh. I would think that certain sections would get substantially more technical/tedious as well as more rock and ice are exposed. cgentzel@aai.cc

I have always thought of the Sulphide as relatively gentle and as presenting no big concerns with regard to crevasse fall potential. I was up there alone after having gone up the Fischer Chimneys last October and plunged into my waist twice and knees another time enroute to and from the summit pyramid. There was some fresh snow that complicated things, not much but enough. I was definitely caught off guard by this and was wishing for a rope and partner at a few points for sure. Just a heads up. Pretty casual but there are a few things to fall into if you know where to step.

When I mentioned 3:1 I guess I was going on the assumption that folks would consider 9:3 & 6:2 = 3:1 and opted for stating the highest climber to single guide ratio. 4:1 is allowed on Rainier by the Park but most services opt for smaller ratios. Denali allows up to 4:1 (or 8:2) but requires 3 guides for a 9 climber trip. Ratio's are not specified by land managers like Mount Baker Snoqualimie NF, groups sizes are though. Some companies advertise up to 5:1 ratios for courses and climbs involving moderate glacier travel. All this is beside the point I guess. Just items of note. The alternatives all do call for a reduction in allowed man or user days, however, the limits suggested are still well above actual use and won't really keep companies from running trips if one assumes that the total number of guided climbers requesting Rainier trips stays about the same or increases slightly. RMI has used about 1/2 of their allowed days in past seasons.

Right on guys. Thanks for the dialog. Very helpful and informative. I think I am leaning towards the Havoc for a couple of reasons. The stiffness, weight, and the price. I can get the Havocs for significantly cheaper than the PR's and I haven't really heard overwhelming support for the PR's making the extra expense worth it. I hadn't looked into the Atomic's. Great. Just when I thought the decision was cut and dried. Sounds like they might be close to the same in design and weight anyhow right? I have an inbounds set up that works well and I am pretty much only going to be using these guys off the beaten path. Thanks again.

I think RMI does provide a service that benefits the public and one that should be offered. Their programs fit what a large number of guided Rainier climbers are looking for, a chance to stand on top without too much time and effort. As previously stated, RMI make's it possible to climb Rainier in a way that appeals to a certain percentage of the population who is either not interested or capable of attempting it in another fashion. The gripes I have heard most often don't relate to the client base that they cater to, but instead things like group size, attitude, courtesy to other climbing parties, imapct on the resource, lack of alternate choices, etc. Whether or not their methods can be deemed safe it sort of up for debate. Safer might be more accurate. Safer than letting folks run loose on the mountain unsupervised certainly, but managing large rope teams and numbers of people doesn't seem like it could ever be safer than smaller teams and ratios. I dont think 15 two or three person parties is much of a reality on the mountain regardless of which alternative is chosen. The demand for guided trips on Rainier is such that trip sizes will more that likely be similar to what they are now for the non-RMI groups, 8-9 climbers with 2-3 guides. I also can't think of any advantage having two cattle trains would offer over any combination of smaller, well organized and led rope teams. I would be curious to know if anyone has had negative experiences with guided groups (other than RMI large teams) on Rainier. The manner in which RMI handles that many clients is one of the biggest arguments for why they could be called worse that other services. Groups of the size that theirs typically are aren't really found anywhere else in the guiding world that I know of. More people and less guides mean more profit for the company. RMI could employ more guides, have smaller ratios and smaller rope teams if they wanted, but their overhead would increase significantly and thanks to the lack of competition and regulation with regard to their trips, they have reason or incentive to want to do shrink their profitability. Rich is also open for definition. No one is really getting rich in the guiding industry when modern standards for the term are considered. The amount of revenue that is generated by RMI clients is colossal when compared to other trips and other companies. Owners and operators of most guide companies would say that Lou is doing pretty well for himself, comparatively rich. As for the loss of work for guides. This is a complex issue. The overall demand for guides shouldnt be affected too much in one way or another. Remember the number of people wanting to be guided on Rainier and the availability of guiding days wont be changing drastically, just (if an alternative is adopted) RMI's slice of them. The demand for guides and employees on the mountain may even increase if the new concessioners run smaller trips and smaller ratios. Many sub issues can and I am sure will come out of the thoughts above. I think the heart of the issue should continue to be protection and conservation of the resources (the mountain) and the best possible service offered to the public. Coley

The language in the IBP that is held by the 4 non-RMI'ers reads like this "Name of Use: Commercially Guided Summit Climbs of Mt. Rainier via the Emmons Route." IBP holders cannot guide summit climbs on any other route on the mountain. Other guiding activites can take place on the mountain (like the RAG trip) but they cannot summit and have to stay below a certain elevation, I believe 10,000 feet. This is done under a special use sort of permit and not a climbing concession or IBP. IBP is not the new way of doing things in the park but rather an interim fix as the concession plan is evaluation and changed. If you look over the new draft version the commercial services plan and the preferred alternatives to the current concession plan, you will notice that all of the alternatives mention a certain number of concessioners and do not reference IBP's at all. Coley

Any Thoughts for a fatty AT setup?

Good summary. A few points of clarification though. With regard to the term PERMITTED, the 4 guide services besides RMI that are currently allowed to guide on Rainier are able to do so by working under an IBP (incidental business permit) which has been granted by the Park Service. This IBP is a temporary solution inacted by the park to sate the publics demand for some competition amongst guide services and the guide services request for the ability to guide on Rainier. Basically the IBP system was/is a "here are some trips until we get the concession thing figured out" sorta deal. RMI is the only concessioned (permitted by contract) guide service on Rainier. They have exclusive rights to the Muir Corridor and, I am fairly certain, the the abilty to guide other routes (minus the Emmons) elsewhere on the mountain. The other 4 guide services guide and only guide on the Emmons route. The number of and dates for their trips, the number of clients they can take on a trip, client-to-guide ratio, camp locations, and many more things are all regulated and assigned by the Park. Perhaps these things have been addressed elsewhere or in other threads and this information is redundant. Just wanted to make sure that these points were understood. Last I heard the Park was still in the process of reviewing the data and feedback they collected during the public complaining, I mean comment process. Anyone know more?

Correction with regard to my previous post. I looked back over the Dickey info in the Ranger station again this spring and contrary to my previous post, I could not find any indication that this route has been climbed to the summit. Sorry for the misinformation and inaccurate post.

It will be quite a while before you can get to the trailhead on pavement. The road is still snowed in 1.5 miles from the trailhead and there is up to 4 feet of snow in places. This was as of 4/3/04. We made it to the trailhead with the help of frozen snow and 4WD but it was hairy to say the least.

TC's is good to go. Was up there on Sunday. The exit from the runnels into the middle couloir is thin and the exit from the middle into the third requires a little rock climbing. The rest of the routes varies from firm wind crust to really nice neve.

I did some research into this route a year or two ago and came across accounts of several attempts on the route, all reporting terrible snow and ice conditions. There is a huge serac that hangs over the gully and strafes the route. In spite of this, two guys from Fairbanks (maybe Anchorage, cant remember) climbed it in 2002 according to the beta in the Talkeetna Ranger station.