Trip Report Mt. Garfield - Infinite Bliss 7/8/2007

[mattp]

I'd like to remind folks that generally speaking, we don't Spray shit all over people's TR's. Friendly banter, fine, discussions about the protection or line or rock, fine, but if you want to rant about the validity of the route please just provide links to the numerous threads already in existence here about this, the Muir on Saturday of rock routes in Washington.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but TR's are different from Spray.

[kevbone]

They are interesting topics but probably deserve their own separate discussions apart from Kevbone's on-going celebration of his remarkable ascent of Infinite Bastard.

 

You never to cease to make me laugh. Thanks. I went from climbing 2 days a week for ten years to being a dad and climbing once a month if I am lucky……hell yeah its celebration.

 

 

By the way, I also have opinions on other mountains I haven't climbed, for example, Mt. Everest: too crowded and trendy

 

 

So…..you know it’s too crowded because you have been there? So a friend told you? Wait….. You read about the crowding online? Newspaper…..?????......So once again…you are speculating about something you have NO first hand experience other than what you are told or read……nice….that tells me a lot about you…..

 

[Alpinfox]

Kevbone will you just shut the fuck up already?

[kevbone]

Kevbone will you just shut the fuck up already?

 

Dude....you are ruining my celebration.

[512dude]

R,

 

I appreciate your response and dialogue. You mention that the "major tangent" is being covered elsewhere and I would like to read more and participate. Could you point me to the discussion please.

 

With regards to our on going discussion:

 

I agree that climbers are a growing community but in relation to other activities such as hiking or mountain biking we are still small in numbers and we do govern ourselves with coalitions such as www.washingtonclimbers.org, the Access Fund, etc.

 

You realize the growth in the local community and contrast our current era with "...a time when ...everybody knew, or knew of, everybody else" but this is far from the situation and let's be thankful that forums like this exist for us to communicate. With the growth in numbers come new perceptions and ideas of what defines climbing. The inclusion of activities that are now considered climbing and exist at the periphery of the climbing envelope are diverse and has created a group that has similar and competing interests. You are clear that "Untold thousands of people call themselves 'climbers', whether they play in the confines of a gym or are alpine big-wall masters and everything in between." So how do we accommodate all these climbers? As you said, a great deal of climbing happens on public land and you and I don't own it so we best come up with a plan on how to educate the new users and share these recreation areas. Not to mention the other groups ie. mtn bikers, hikers, trail runners, ORV'ers, etc. - but let's just deal with our own community.

 

So with this understanding you obviously realize change is bound to occur and this change will impact your personal choices and challenge your perception of climbing. But you must also realize that just as you have had the right to challenge the past generation of 'old timers' and their ethics so will the next generation challenge yours. I bet you climb with sticky rubber shoes, lighter aluminum carabiners, Dyneema slings, thinner light weight nylon ropes, chalk, camming devices and other modern climbing amenities. I am sure I can find some 'older & wiser' climber than you that thinks your ethics are a disgrace because of your choices. However, that is the era you grew up in, the way you learned how to climb, the choices you made that you considered ethical and that have made you the climber you are today. It is the same process that the next generation of climbers will employ and they are taking for granted sticky rubber, chalk, rap bolting, bolts, chains, topos etc. as if they were always there and a given part of climbing and they will adopt these as 'standards' unless they know otherwise and are given the knowledge to make a choice. You said it yourself "...it would be...fair...to say that most new climbers don't have a clue that there is controversy about placing bolts or other provocative environmental issues." How do you expect them to know??? The only way they could know otherwise is if individuals such as yourself educate them, show them another way and teach them about the past and your personal ethics.

 

However, it doesn't mean your way is the right way or only way - it is just a way. If the new climbers choose not to follow your path and enjoy sport climbing then there isn't much you can do about it because it isn't your choice, it is their choice and no matter how much ranting and bolt chopping you do there will be more of them than you. The most we can do is set a good example and work together to resolve these issues. I'm sure you know the cliche "strength in numbers". As far as Infinite Bliss goes it seems like some individuals have done just that. They have worked with the land managers to come up with a plan.

 

http://www.washingtonclimbers.org/Current/Infinite.htm

 

Now if you choose to act on your own and go chop or modify the route, it would seem that you are no different than those that took it upon themselves to put the route up. (Although they had at least attempted to investigate the sensitivity of this area and were apparently hampered by misinformation and out of date topographical information.) Your actions would be the same but only with different intentions.

 

So I choose to discuss these issues with my fellow climbers, build a sense of continued community, help establish some new standards and preserve the old, use logic/reasoning and sensitivity to what others find pleasurable and hence valuable to help improve the situation. I hope you will join me and other climbers and continue to be as open with your thoughts and opinions as always but before you take action discuss it with all of us who haven't violated the Wilderness Act, who do act as stewards of the land, who work with the land managers & other interest groups and employ our own sense of ethics when consider these sensitive issues.

 

Sincerely,

c

 

 

Why do you think it is a better option to do whatever you want with rock routes vs. discussing options with the first ascentionist? Perhaps you have some good reasons/intentions and it would help me/us to understand your reasoning.

 

This is becoming a major tangent covered in depth elsewhere, but here are some brief comments (believe me, I could go on and on) to answer your inquiry:

 

Raindawg,

 

You are correct that this rule isn't law but what is law anyhow? A set of rules/guiding principles which we agree to abide by so that anarchy doesn't exist. It just happens we climbers are self governed and as a small community we do respect each others interests in climbing and the routes that get established. You do confirm that you have knowledge of the unwritten rule yourself but choose not to agree.

 

I don't believe that climbers are any longer a "small" community nor necessarily even a "community". There once was a time when it was somewhat self-policing because everybody knew, or knew of, everybody else. In the present day where climbing is mass-marketed, it's a different universe. Untold thousands of people call themselves "climbers", whether they play in the confines of a gym or are alpine big-wall masters and everything in between. Some of us find sport-climbing, with its reliance on trails of permanent anchors, to be a warped permutation of climbing, if not utterly illegitimate, and unfortunately, it has become the status quo. The learning curve is very short and the easy gratification is satisfying. I think it would be a fair statement to say that most new climbers don't have a clue that there is controversy about placing bolts or other provocative environmental issues.

 

Some of us think a lot of the routes established today are shameful and bogus...including sport-bolting on traditional crags and in the mountains e.g. "Infinite Bliss". In such cases I think the only reason to talk to a "first ascensionist" doing these sorts of things is to ask him to desist or to clean up his mess.

 

Additionally...most climbing areas are on public land. They aren't owned by any "first ascensionist". The obligation is to be a good steward. If I see someone damaging our environment, I might choose to address the problem with or without the blessing of such "F.A."'s.

 

we do respect each others interests in climbing and the routes that get established.

 

Not necessarily so. See the above.

 

You do confirm that you have knowledge of the unwritten rule yourself but choose not to agree.

 

I choose not to agree to the extent that it interferes with my own sense of ethics.

 

I hope this clarifies some things or perhaps introduces you to another perspective.

 

 

Thx

c

 

you're wlcm

 

r

 

 

Edited July 13, 2007 by 512dude

[billcoe]

I'm done with IB spraying.

 

thank you Jens.

[billcoe]

First, thank you to folks like 512dude, Lucky and Rad. You dudes rule.

 

Next to address Don's last post.

 

I don't believe that climbers are any longer a "small" community nor necessarily even a "community". There once was a time when it was somewhat self-policing because everybody knew, or knew of, everybody else.

 

You must be refering to some of the close historic ethical discussions, sorting out and partnerships like the Royal Robbins/Warren Harding Wall of the Early Morning Light? John Bacher /Ron Kauk slugfest, Todd Skinner hangdogging AND toprope rehearsal before leading(gasp!) or Tony Yaniro and about everyone else?

 

Yes things were better then weren't they? All that anger didn't do shit. Did Warren Harding change his attitude? Todd?

 

NO.

 

 

 

 

 

In the present day where climbing is mass-marketed, it's a different universe. Untold thousands of people call themselves "climbers", whether they play in the confines of a gym or are alpine big-wall masters and everything in between. Some of us find sport-climbing, with its reliance on trails of permanent anchors, to be a warped permutation of climbing, if not utterly illegitimate, and unfortunately, it has become the status quo. The learning curve is very short and the easy gratification is satisfying. I think it would be a fair statement to say that most new climbers don't have a clue that there is controversy about placing bolts or other provocative environmental issues.

 

Most new climbers? I can't say about that. I do see what you are talking about Don, and it is somewhat disturbing to me as well. This belief in some god-given right to safety. Disturbing for sure. As is watching a family of 4 and 4 more of their friends show up to toprope a 5.7 route, and watch them all mill around like dumb-assed ignorant cows in a field, unroped, at the top of the climb, staring at a deathfall, while they wait for one of their members to set it up so he can go down and then lower everybody to the ground. (this was last Tuesday).

 

 

 

......

 

Additionally...most climbing areas are on public land. They aren't owned by any "first ascensionist". The obligation is to be a good steward. If I see someone damaging our environment, I might choose to address the problem with or without the blessing of such "F.A."'s.

 

I haven't hear a peep out of you going to get a true wilderness area like Raineer on track, somehow it's fine to drag in massive earthmoving equipment and build new roads there. Shit, even 1 100 foot piece of road is a bigger negative environmental impact than all of the bolts ever placed by all climbers in their totality. But you don't say jack shit about that. Also, as long as you realize that like Ken Nichols, you are almost as far out of the mainstream thought, and are prepared for the violence that will most likely come your way should you do this act and then stand up and proudly proclaim you did such a thing.

 

 

You do confirm that you have knowledge of the unwritten rule yourself but choose not to agree.

 

I choose not to agree to the extent that it interferes with my own sense of ethics.

 

I cannot add to that, seems pretty self-centered.

 

So have a nice day Carrie Nation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Raindawg]

I'd like to remind folks that generally speaking, we don't Spray shit all over people's TR's. Friendly banter, fine, discussions about the protection or line or rock, fine, but if you want to rant about the validity of the route please just provide links to the numerous threads already in existence here about this, the Muir on Saturday of rock routes in Washington.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but TR's are different from Spray.

 

Some interesting tangents have been inspired by this topic, for example, the "rights" of first-ascensionists regarding "their" routes, etc. They are interesting topics but probably deserve their own separate discussions apart from Kevbone's on-going celebration of his remarkable ascent of Infinite Bastard.

 

I think the big hint is that these side-subjects should be addressed elsewhere. I was contacted earlier today by a moderator who strongly suggested that very thing. So although I appreciate the work put into the latest extended comments of "512dude" and "billcoe", I think they belong elsewhere in a separate topic. Perhaps in "Rock Climbing" or "Access"...(I don't think ethical issues should be categorized as "spray"...maybe we need a new category for controversial topics.)

So...I'm not addressing this stuff here anymore...they might kick me off...again...and maybe you too.

 

[Peter_Puget]

Raindawg and everyone else -

 

Feel free to continue the discussion on this thread. This trip report itself explicitly encouraged bolt discussion. One thing everyone can leave out is smart ass comments and visuals.

 

 

[billcoe]

"spray"...maybe we need a new category for controversial topics.)

So...I'm not addressing this stuff here anymore...they might kick me off...again...and maybe you too.

 

Hope not, I publically said so last time, that seemed wrong to me.

 

..... One thing everyone can leave out is smart ass comments.......

 

 

Sorry. My nature I guess! I try...sigh....

[512dude]

Gentlemen (and I use that term lightly)

 

can we take it here and I'll buy the next round!

http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/703148/page/1#Post703148

 

Thanks,

c

 

Raindawg and everyone else -

 

Feel free to continue the discussion on this thread. This trip report itself explicitly encouraged bolt discussion. One thing everyone can leave out is smart ass comments and visuals.

 

[kevbone]

I guess my celebration is over.

[Peter_Puget]

I disagree; why make multiple threads threads?

 

The intitial post contained:

 

 

Question about the mandatory down climb: who would spend so much quality time drilling bolts and anchors…..just to not place one more for safety? We ended up making an extra two raps off branches sticking out of the wall….and its way more than 50 of down climbing……matter of fact I think the length of the rappels on the topo where way off.

 

I would say were there was bolts they did a great job, but then you get way up on the route and there is about 600 of climbing with no bolts on not so good granite. You can supplement gear here and there. But the rock you are placing you cams behind sucks and would not hold the 50 foot fall you would take.

 

I did notice 4 bolts on the first 5 pitches that where not necessary due to a crack being a coupe of feet from it. Other than that the route was very fun and well thought out.

 

This was a very long day…..what it needs would be protection bolts on pitch 15-17 and another anchor on the rappel, which would eliminate the down climb.

 

Why not continue? Multiple threads = cluster fuck.

Edited July 13, 2007 by Peter_Puget

[mattp]

I don't know if asking about the lack of anchors was in fact intended as an invitation to discussing whether this route is the biggest crime since the crucifixion but whats a little ethics among friends?

 

 

(All other things being equal, I DO think we ought to try to maintain some distinction between route reports and discussion threads that is not based on inference or assumptions about the motives of the original poster - maybe by posting without the "TR" tags?)

Edited July 13, 2007 by Peter_Puget

[512dude]

Because RainDawg feels threatened and I want to continue the discussion with him I offered the alternative.

 

RainDawg said: "So although I appreciate the work put into the latest extended comments of "512dude" and "billcoe", I think they belong elsewhere in a separate topic. Perhaps in "Rock Climbing" or "Access"...(I don't think ethical issues should be categorized as "spray"...maybe we need a new category for controversial topics.)

So...I'm not addressing this stuff here anymore...they might kick me off...again...and maybe you too. "

[kevbone]

I don't know if asking about the lack of anchors was in fact intended as an invitation to discussing whether this route is the biggest crime since the crucifixion but whats a little ethics among friends?

 

 

(All other things being equal, I DO think we ought to try to maintain some distinction between route reports and discussion threads that is not based on inference or assumptions about the motives of the original poster - maybe by posting without the "TR" tags?)

 

 

I posted this as a “trip report” because…..well…..I don’t climb as much as I used to now that I am a dad……it was a big deal for me to go over night somewhere…..and to climb this particular route was intriguing for so many reasons……I did not think this “trip report” would go more than a page or two……I wanted to see the route with my own eyes, then I would have first hand knowledge of the ongoing discussion.

 

Thread drift is popular with folks here on this site……I see nothing wrong with it. As long as you and I stay away from the visuals and personal attacks. As long as the mods don’t mind us continuing this discussion on a trip report.

 

[mattp]

I more or less agree with you there, Kevbone, but our attempt with the tighter trip report guidelines has been to maintain a kind of clear distinction as to which threads are for more tangential discussion and which are not.

 

Thread drift and spray and arguing about semantics or ethics or technical whoop dee doo is certainly a part of cc.com, but there are a significant number of users who are not interested in such "distraction". Also, there are lots of potential trip report authors who are dissuaded from posting by having their report of a climb buried in discussion of their attire, their climbing style, the original route developer, or whatever else some cc.com critic wants to jump on.

 

So we're doing what we can to make sense of when the discussion should wander and when not. By having one mod say "hey there: This is thread is not for spraying on," and then another say "its all good so carry on the agument" we've really helped make it clear, I know, but hey: we're doing the best we can, OK?

 

 

[512dude]

Raindawg,

 

seems like we have been given clearance to proceed with the discussion here if you'd like.

 

If not thanks for the sharing.

Edited July 13, 2007 by 512dude

[billcoe]

I suspect Don feels like I do 512dude. I appreciate how gracious and concilatory you are being too btw.

 

We have both said our piece, completely and honestly. From this point on, were just gonna start to feel like dogs barkin at the garbageman.

 

It's ineffective to just keep jackin' on and on. Maybe we can just start cutting and pasting our points?

 

 

 

Kev: you don't poke sharp sticks at sleeping pit bulls behind low fences by any chance do ya?

 

Something about sleeping dawgs lie...

Edited July 17, 2007 by billcoe

[kevbone]

Bill.....cant wait until you post a TR if IB! Getter done!!!!

[ilookeddown]

Kevbone thanks for the report.

 

 

 

[David Yount]

These bolt counts accurate, the ratings are my own:

1 5.6 2

2 5.4 5

3 5.4 2

4 5.6 9

5 5.5 9

6 5.7 5

7 5.6 7

8 5.6 3

9 5.9 10

10 5.8 7

11 5.10C 9 (i reference exit 32 and exit 38 for rating)

12 5.8 6

13 5.2 1

14 5.7 9

15 5.2 2

16 5.2 0

17 5.1 0

18 5.8 8

19 5.10C 17

20 5.7 2

21 5.8 15

22 5.9 11

23 5.9 14 (i reference exit 32 and exit 38 for rating)

 

In the first 15 pitches, 6 are about 100 feet, 2 are about 190 feet and 7 are about 150 feet.

 

I don't feel the lower sections are grid bolted. Most are near a full rope length. What do you think?

 

1st 5.6 w/2 bolts

2nd 5.6 w/5 bolts

3rd 5.6 w/2 bolts

4th 5.8 w/9 bolts

5th 5.7 w/9 bolts

6th 5.8 w/5 bolts

7th 5.7 w/7 bolts

8th 5.6 w/3 bolts

9th 5.9 w/10 bolts

10th 5.7 w/7 bolts

11th 10b w/9 bolts

12th 5.7 w/6 bolts

13th 5.1 w/1 bolt

14th 5.8 w/8 bolts

15th 5.0 w/2 bolts

 

Unless some have been added in the last couple of years.

[chucK]

I think this is a better way to do it.

 

pitch rating boltcount

1 5.7 50

2 5.9 18

3 5.10A 16

4 5.8 25

5 5.10B 17

6 5.8 18

7 5.9 11

8 5.9 14

 

With about 20 draws you'll need to skip a few clips on pitch 1, or perhaps break it into two pitches (I think we did both).

[olyclimber]

I could just see someone started up the route with 50 quickdraws strapped to their harness...

[billcoe]

These bolt counts accurate, the ratings are my own:

1 5.6 2

2 5.4 5

3 5.4 2

4 5.6 9

5 5.5 9

6 5.7 5

7 5.6 7

8 5.6 3

9 5.9 10

10 5.8 7

11 5.10C 9 (i reference exit 32 and exit 38 for rating)

12 5.8 6

13 5.2 1

14 5.7 9

15 5.2 2

16 5.2 0

17 5.1 0

18 5.8 8

19 5.10C 17

20 5.7 2

21 5.8 15

22 5.9 11

23 5.9 14 (i reference exit 32 and exit 38 for rating)

 

In the first 15 pitches, 6 are about 100 feet, 2 are about 190 feet and 7 are about 150 feet.

 

153 bolts X lets say $3 a unit $1 for the bolt and $2 for the hanger = $459 and that doesn't include the belay bolts either?

 

Wow. Serious scratch. Serious work too.