South Twin Sister - accident 6/11/06

[luwayo]

A party of 14 scrambled to summit the North Twin Sister yesterday. They observed 12 known counterparts going for the summit of the South Twin Sister. Both trips were successful. Thumbs up for safe mob management. A third independant group of 4, starting earlier was descending STS, heading for what was reported as a "bergshrund". Early reports say that the climber fell into the "slot" and sustained a broken arm. Chopper rescue followed. The hole sounds like a real gaper, reported as "4 climbers deep". The injured party is believed to be from Victoria.

 

Wishing the injured a speedy recovery!

[layton]

What the hell were you thinking bringing 26 people into the mountains????????????????

[G-spotter]

Mike are you worried your sick proj in the Sisters is going to get swarmed?

[layton]

talk about a way to ruin a day in the mountains for you, your party, and everyone else. go to the mall with that many people

[Off_White]

People, I don't want a repeat of the Yellow Jacket Tower accident thread. If you wanna complain about large groups in the mountains, or anything else, please go start a thread in Spray.

[luwayo]

Michael, are you asking if i led the small army? i was not there. a mob scene in the mountains is always repugnant! add a full moon to that weekend.

 

maybe we'll get an original attendee to verify the fact pattern. until then, more heresay: the injured party (from the group of 4) may have been assisted by the larger STS group, in the form of a cell phone call. if so, lucky for them.

 

anyone here done the descent above the shrund on to the sisters glacier, and then popping up through the NTS/STS gap? i understand it's a short cut descent from STS?

Edited June 13, 2006 by luwayo

[luwayo]

does this non-response mean nobody here has done the ascent/descent of the N.face of STS via the N.ridge?

 

the N.face sounds super steep, and i wonder if it takes pro - or not, in the early season.

[chris]

There wasn't a much exposed rock when I skied past it last month. But it dries out a lot in the summer...

[MountaingirlBC]

The 26 people were divided between two mountains. I was on the N Twin with 13 other people. What's the big deal? We're all friends and it was fun. It's not like we were trampling fragile alpine meadows or bothering anyone.

[layton]

Besides the fact that I think it's illegal to have that many people in a backcountry group, it ruins other parties experience, and increases the risk of an accident exponentially...and it is harmful to the environment to have that many people in a group outside at once.

[Coastal_Climber]

I am the person that organized the trip to the N twin.

First of all I didn't know that it was "illegal" to have this many people, 14 in a group in the mountains. Now that I know this I feel that I must contact the authorities to inform them that I encountered a party of eighty climbers in a solid group heading for the summit of Mt Rainier, this definitely "ruined our parties experience"

Our party on the N Twin had no "accidents", although an independent party of four on the S Twin ran into trouble and required assistance. I don't think a large party increases the risk of an accident. Unless your referring to roped climbing, where I agree 2-4 people max.

As for the impact on the environment. The first three hours of our day were cycling on logging roads, fairly low impact. The last time I was there I encountered a large group of "good old boy's" on oversized quads, I think they wreck the road more than bicycles. Then we hiked through a "clear-cut" hope we didn't impact that to much. There was a trail that we hiked on for fifteen minutes, fourteen people may have been to many, I think two groups of seven would have been better. Once we were on the ridge our party broke up into smaller groups and we couldn't even see each other. Not exactly a mob scene.

In short there were no meadows to tromp, trails to trash, campsites to overload AND we were the only party to climb the N Twin on that day. I think it's a good thing that the road is gated, as this being such a classic scramble it probably would look like Rainier if the access was easier.

I will however try to keep the group size to 10-12 people in the future, I believe this is the number the "authorities" want to see. It's the number I wanted to see, but due to the deteriorating weather some people bailed on their overnight trips and came on mine (which meant less people on Shuksan)

I hope this puts this to rest.

[Off_White]

Sounds like the only folks whose experience was ruined was the party of four, and likely they were grateful for the person in your group who called for help.

 

I thought party size limits only applied to wilderness areas, are the Twin Sisters in a wilderness area? You might want to do some research.

[MountaingirlBC]

I'm trying to figure out this party size thing. It does appear that the N Twin is right on the edge of the national forest (what's the diff between a national forest and a national park?) which is news to me (no excuse, I can read a map... just didn't). I'm trying to figure it out but there's barely any info on the web site. I know you can't have more than 12 in the North Cascades National Park but the N Twin is in the Mount Baker/Snoqualmie National Forest.

 

Anyway... we weren't trying to be jerks and as it has already been stated I don't think we did a whole lot of damage to the logging road or clearcut and it's pretty natural for a group that size to spread out. Personally I don't see what the big deal is with a party of 14 going into an area like that vs. 30 smaller parties stomping around the meadows en route to Tomihoy. If everyone just used a little common sense we wouldn't need all these rules. There are absolutely no Forest Service or National Park signs to be found anywhere. But I do like to play by the rules so if someone knows the official answer to the question of party size in these various designated areas I'd appreciate knowing.

[chelle]

Are we talking about the Twin Sisters area in Oregon? If so, it is not in the Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest as far as I can tell. It's part of its own wilderness area within the Willamette National Forest. Your party size may or may not be a problem, but if you're concerned in the future contact the ranger stations in that area. According to the BLM regulation s on wilderness areas:

 

Sec. 6302.14 What authorization do I need to climb in BLM wilderness?

 

(a) You do not need a permit or other authorization to climb in BLM

wilderness.

(b) [Reserved]

© You must not use power drills for climbing. See

Sec. 6302.20(d).

 

[[Page 78374]]

 

It sounds like you followed a leave no trace ethic, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

 

http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/us_wilderness_area/or_three.htm

[Choada_Boy]

Um...Twin Sisters in WA, according to all the readily apparent details. See above.

[chelle]

Ok then I missed that part... search of the national forest site supports the climbers assertions that their party size did not matter.

 

No permit necessary, few regulations on climbing activities, which was my earlier point anyways.

[ketch]

Mountain Girl, if you have a fairly good map it is not too hard to figure. The regs do not apply to parks or non parks. The reg is in regard to Designated wilderness areas. Inside a wilderness area the party size is limited to 12 (including stock if applicable) and no mechanical items are allowed. Looking at Mt Baker is a classic example of the rub. Most of it is inside a wilderness and so it's manual stuff only and limited parties. (even the rangers have to use hand carry or horse carry hence the interesting "suitcase" potties) but there is a small pie shaped piece that roughly follows the railroad grade that is not in the wilderness area. This is where sledheads often bump heads with climbers.

 

Look at you map and your should be able to see the boundaries labled pretty clear. I don't have the map with me right now but I am pretty sure that Nsister is not in a wilderness area. So no worries some may say that large parties are bad form it is in this case not illegal.

 

Glad you had a good trip

[G-spotter]

ive got my map right here... boundary of the mount baker wilderness follows the crest of the sisters ridge. east side is in, west side is out. so as long as the party doesn't step east of the summit cairn on north or south sister it is all good and legal

[dmuja]

My best to the injured party.

 

PS - Im sure you each had your "ten essentials" and cell phones and all that, BUT C'MMMON!! "14 in a group in the mountains" is pretty disgustingly rude!!! It may be fun for those in the group, but regardless of how "well managed" it still sucks for others to run into THAT. This should be obvious! I believe even the mounties limit their group size to much less unless teaching at at crag..at least I hope so.

 

Once again, Im soooo glad I solo

[layton]

My best to the injured party.

 

PS - Im sure you each had your "ten essentials" and cell phones and all that, BUT C'MMMON!! "14 in a group in the mountains" is pretty disgustingly rude!!! It may be fun for those in the group, but regardless of how "well managed" it still sucks for others to run into THAT. This should be obvious! I believe even the mounties limit their group size to much less unless teaching at at crag..at least I hope so.

 

Once again, Im soooo glad I solo

 

Thank you

[MountaingirlBC]

ok so we weren't technically at fault as the N Twin is not in the wilderness area. I somewhat agree as to large groups being obnoxious however i think you have to look at it on a case by case basis. I would not go with a group this large to a more popular area. We were the only group on the mountain all day. What difference does it make if there are three groups of 5 or one group of 14? Especially on a day trip. A large group like that camping in a popular area would be totally obnoxious, granted.

 

What exactly is it that you find disgustingly rude & obnoxious? Not trying to be an asshole, just wondering. How does it affect you? What can large groups do to minimize their impact on other hikers/climbers?

[chelle]

What difference does it make if there are three groups of 5 or one group of 14? Especially on a day trip. A large group like that camping in a popular area would be totally obnoxious, granted.

 

There is no difference. A group of 5, three groups of 5, or a group of 12 or 14 can each be equally obnoxious. Even a group of 2 can be obnoxious if they want to be. It all comes down to how considerate the people are of others around them. If the people are climbing safely, cleaning up after themselves and not being too loud, does it really matter?

 

On a recent trip to Smith there were 4 of us (two cars) camped out at the grasslands. A car of 3 climbers drove in and asked if they could share our large campspace. We thought, no big deal. Sure it's big enough. Then later in the evening and the next night 4 other cars drove up to "camp out" with them. All total there was maybe 9 of them. That was obnoxious. Most obnoxious was the need for all of them to spray loudly about their recent road trips and climbs. Those same stories get boring to listen to. "Dude...it was so radical hanging out on that cliff. You should've seen it."

Edited June 16, 2006 by chelle

[E-rock]

Mike Gayton. Normally I appreciate your contributions to the site. But you sounded like a real dick on this thread. Think before you type on accident threads.

[Skeezix]

I'd like to answer MountaingirlBC's question about the difference between a National Park and a National Forest. Many people in our own country aren't clear about the difference, but it's a big difference. It has to do with management priorities. National Forest is managed for "multiple uses" such as recreation, logging, mining, etc. Some would characterize National Forest management as "multiple abuses," as National Forests often contain more roads, clearcuts, and other signs of heavy human impact. National Forest Rangers, however, have pretty cool uniforms. The National Forest is old school, at least compared to the National Park Service. Some of the most beautiful wild areas in the contiguous 48 states are on Forest Service land --most afforded a high level of protection as wilderness. National Parks include most of the most dramatically beautiful wild areas, such as Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Grand Teton, Rainier, the North Cascades. We won't get into the "cannon ball" parks back east, never mind about those... National Parks generally enjoy a higher level of protection --at least the wild parks of the western U.S. The management priority of National Parks is to preserve the resource while providing for the enjoyment of the parks by visitors. This is a tricky balancing act that seeks to allow recreation while minimizing impact. Hunting is allowed in National Forests, but not in National Parks. National Forests are part of the Federal Department of Agriculture. Think crops ...of trees. National Parks, on the other hand, are managed by the Department of the Interior. I know this is probably pretty confusing to Canadians. But it's mostly true.

[layton]

Sorry if I sound like an asshole, but I still think that a party 26 people in the mountains is a bad call. I was wrong about the wilderness boundary, so I gues it's not illegeal there (not that I really care what's legal).

 

I'm glad they had fun, but I'm also glad I wasn't there.