Validity of an the ascent

[Cpt.Caveman]

pope said:

Not precisely the same, just much the same....minus a little dirt. Most of the routes have very little if any fixed protection, and what is there are seems to be artifacts of more historical interest than protective value. They were placed on lead, and that's significant.

 

Minus the dirt, this is true. But as Fred found the rock, in most cases it is still the same: no bolts, no chipped holds, no dubious hanging belays in the middle of nowhere.

 

 

Fred's placed a lot of bolts. One of his older partners told me his hammer was totally worn down to nothing on one trip. But I am sure he was using it for pitons more than bolts.

 

There is an old summit magazine with talk about routes on the Chief. In there he somewhat critized a little (seemingly respectfully) the Grand Wall route and the amount of bolts and purity when compared with his never ?? done Northwest Passage route that didn't have half the bolts. I am not critizing the Grand Wall route or climbers that did it. Just some perspective. Meaning I think FB would rather take the natural line and preserve as much as possible.

 

I clip all of FB bolts with glee and no shame. Even if he was using them for aid and people free climb them today without it. It's another era or 3 later now and things indeed have changed. But to keep focus on preservation is nice too.

 

As far as loggers ledge well shit- You can scream more about the Deforest Service easily.

[pope]

Cpt.Caveman said:

pope said:

Not precisely the same, just much the same....minus a little dirt. Most of the routes have very little if any fixed protection, and what is there are seems to be artifacts of more historical interest than protective value. They were placed on lead, and that's significant.

 

Minus the dirt, this is true. But as Fred found the rock, in most cases it is still the same: no bolts, no chipped holds, no dubious hanging belays in the middle of nowhere.

 

 

Fred's placed a lot of bolts. One of his older partners told me his hammer was totally worn down to nothing on one trip. But I am sure he was using it for pitons more than bolts.

 

There is an old summit magazine with talk about routes on the Chief. In there he somewhat critized a little (seemingly respectfully) the Grand Wall route and the amount of bolts and purity when compared with his never ?? done Northwest Passage route that didn't have half the bolts. I am not critizing the Grand Wall route or climbers that did it. Just some perspective. Meaning I think FB would rather take the natural line and preserve as much as possible.

 

I clip all of FB bolts with glee and no shame. Even if he was using them for aid and people free climb them today without it. It's another era or 3 later now and things indeed have changed. But to keep focus on preservation is nice too.

 

As far as loggers ledge well shit- You can scream more about the Deforest Service easily.

 

Yes, he did a little bolting, but most of it was on the lead. He didn't have today's high-tech gear that might have allowed safe passage without all of the bolts. There's an old bolt (from the FB or MattP era no doubt) on Outerspace next to the dang 300 ft hand crack for crying out loud!

[Szyjakowski]

that old bolt was probably for a belay...due to much shorter ropes in those days... i think it is gone now.

 

[Dru]

there are old bolts (CHOPPED) all the way up classic crack. ethical precedent?

[Sphinx]

So it's OK that FB placed bolts because he didn't have modern gear???? But a modern climber can't bolt even though he doesn't have the gear that climbers in 50 years will use? Pope, you're such a hypocrite. You make me sick.

[Cpt.Caveman]

Szyjakowski said:

that old bolt was probably for a belay...due to much shorter ropes in those days... i think it is gone now.

 

The stud of the bolt remnant is still there and I do believe it was placed for a belay as well.

[Cpt.Caveman]

Sphinx said:

So it's OK that FB placed bolts because he didn't have modern gear???? But a modern climber can't bolt even though he doesn't have the gear that climbers in 50 years will use? Pope, you're such a hypocrite. You make me sick.

 

To say it is ok and glide over the fact that FB placed bolts only when he thought was absolutely necessary more times than not is kind of silly. It's really a short "out of context" question\response with a not so cleverly inserted "less gear or modern equipment" comment.

[Sphinx]

I'm cool with FB's old bolts, I'm just not cool with Poper giving FB an excuse not to be criticized.

[Dru]

this guy only needs 2 bolts and look how strong he is

[Cpt.Caveman]

Sphinx said:

I'm cool with FB's old bolts, I'm just not cool with Poper giving FB an excuse not to be criticized.

 

Fair enough. Just want to keep in mind he was climbing before all this committee, rules, and ethics era. Yet he has ethics, style and ideals. Maybe he has done some things in the mountains he may regret but my guess the impact was minimal compared to some. When I say some that doesnt single anyone particular or group out either. A little common sense will figure out MOST but not all of what I am saying.

 

Yes he is definitely a person to be criticized but having some facts would help - not saying you have not provided any just making a broad statement.

[Sphinx]

...

[Cpt.Caveman]

Yeah Beckey is plab!

 

[SEF]

I've not posted in awhile, but have lurked from time to time. This thread prompted me to post.

 

It strikes me as rather odd that the style of ascent as described by Erik could be discredited by anyone and suggested as not valid, when, historically, his approach was the style most often used in the past for first ascents. Is the issue the style used or whether the ascent was, in fact, the first? I add my voice to those that applaud Erik's style.

 

No one who has climbed for many years in Leavenworth can fail to notice the increase in recent years in the number of white streaks sprouting on rock faces and slabs clearly visible from the road some distance away. These streaks are new routes done with "modern" techniques that include significant "cleaning." I have to ask if this is progress? Such development certainly looks anything but natural from afar.

 

I'm not necessarily criticizing bolting though I do not advocate unnecesary bolting. I have lamented many traditional top rope anchors along the Icicle that have been used for many decades that in recent times have had bolts chopped, and wondered why? Yet new bolts have sprouted alongside old top rope routes or next to relatively obvious placements, apparently to make a sport route ready for the quick draw set. Again, but for different reasons, I wonder, why?

 

Sometimes, the well placed bolt can preserve the seam that otherwise would not accept pro except by pounding knifeblades or scraping out dirt to get the thinest of RP's. Which is worse, the hard gardening, the destruction caused by the pin or the bolt?

 

I have no answers, but I do know that some land managers are starting to look at the issue and have also seen the growing signs of disruption, especially the increase in white streaks on the hillsides. We should take note.

 

For the long term, if we want to preserve or increase climbing in the Icicle and elsewhere, we do need to find a way to develop routes to escape such obvious notice. More heavily cleaned and bolted routes will make for more notoriety among management officials, and, I fear, more regulation. That would be self defeating.

 

-Steve Firebaugh

[RuMR]

Steve...

 

First, a very thoughtful post on the many issues present...

 

I have to say though, that alot of what you are describing will "naturally" (and i mean naturally, in the sense of time, not nature) occur...This is a fact of the sheer numbers of climbers and the many more that are entering the sport.

 

So, what can be done? What would be some mitigating steps that could be taken? I don't know...some advocate keeping climbing dangerous w/ some sparks to it...this would tend to keep traffic down, but increase toproping...either way, this sport will have impacts just based on the masses...

 

Rudy Ruana

[Dru]

i have a fond affectation for the white scrubbed streaks i have created over the years but the reality is as time passes they generally seem to fade back to gray

 

then again you have like the west face of NEWS with the infamously referred to "rabbit trail" which i don't believe was ever wirebrushed but then again maybe it was? alpine lichens grow slower, anyhow

[pope]

...

[Cpt.Caveman]

you could nearly always count on getting a history lesson out of the summit register

 

Nope

[slaphappy]

Returning to Erik's original post... A first ascent is a first ascent regardless of the style used. Whether or not it should appear in a guidebook or not is a diiferent topic. Were the adventure climbs reported to the guidebook author? When approached by the author, was there an exchange of information or was he shrugged off? Did the author selectively omit some of these climbs? Were other routes in close proximity, put up in a different style, included? I think the truth is being twisted a bit, it seems to me that for the most part the higher crags in the Icicle were left out on purpose. When I asked for a specific example of one of these retro prepared lines, the response was "one near Warrior Wall" this hardly applies to the original post. For the most part the routes in this area are all 1-2 pitch climbs and incuded in detail in the latest guide. I ask again for a specific example.

 

There are many climbers exploring the upper reaches of the Icicle and Tumwater and have been for generations. They use the same (or similar) ground up, clean as you go, style that Erik and friends use. Little care is taken to document these ascents and likewise they don't care if someone in the future has a vision and puts forth the huge amount of effort to prepare the route, claiming it as a "first". Often times the prepared line deviates from the original line and ends up a more asthetic climb.

 

Erik, if you truly care (and obviously you do, you wouldn't have brought it up if you did not), you should report your and your friends climbs and your original point will become moot.

 

On a similar note... I have read countless times that the climbers who clean new routes are motivated by their name in a guidebook. Why then, do these same seemingly ego driven people not report their new routes here on CC.com the audience is far larger? Sure, some might say that the general distaste for bolts commonly expressed here is a deterent but as Peter Puget pointed out a few weeks ago, this summer has been a fantastic one, and scores of new routes were likely put up all over the state. Why then were the ones that did not include bolting or thorough cleaning not reported here? Perhaps their motivation is not as ego driven as some may think.

 

SEF- In your well thought out post you mention having direct contact with the land managers in the Icicle. To be more specific, are you refering to the Forest Service or private land owners? What are their specific concerns? Is it the "white stripes", the impact on the hillsides, or perhaps the cars lined up along the road (many of which are the result of organized clubs)? Have you or anyone else discussed it with Andy Fitz?

 

 

 

-slap