Stuart/Colchuck Lake TH Closed

[Rodchester]

I will say this. I can see both sides in the access versus restrict access debate.

I must say that I am all for leaving areas roadless be and even returning some areas to roadless status. I am not into banning the humans or anything like that.

When a road washes out or a bridge is ACTUALLY no longer viable, they should review the need, utlitity, and cost of vehicle access. Maybe it should be turned back into a roasdless area? The dashboard crowd has plenty of areas to drive through and to.

The idea that, because the bridge is out no one can walk the road? That is pure bullshit. I feel like going out there and walking it just to say FO.

The reality is that certain areas are and should remain beyond the reach of the dashboard crowd. Al Bundy and Ned Flanders are simply not made to be in the wilderness. They are safer in thier cars. We need to preserve the wilderness and even return some lands back to wilderness.

I undertstand access for all, but how about wheelchair ramps up Liberty Bell? Should the wheeled person be denied access? That is akin to me bolting a ladder up some route that I can't lead and saying I shouldn't be denied access to it. Face it, Al Bundy belongs on his couch and that bastard Ned belongs in church. If Al or Ned want to go into the wilderness, they will just have to get out of thier cars. I don't think this is selfish.

I know I got off topic and that this spills over to the debate about the road on the west side of Rainier, but that is my 2 cents.

[max]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rodchester:

Al Bundy and Ned Flanders are simply not made to be in the wilderness. They are safer in thier cars...

---

At first I thought you were talking about Ted Bundy. I was confused for a bit!

[erik]

quote:

---

Originally posted by max:

At first I thought you were talking about Ted Bundy. I was confused for a bit!

---

thats why you are an idiot!!! (complete thouhgt completed)

[David_Parker]

Peter, I notice you live in England. I don't know if you are from the UK, but I find we Americans could learn a few things about "access" from our former brethren. We in america are much to litigeous and this seems to underly all our really stupid decisions when it come to access. I live in an area where the houses are fairly spread out, but it seems impossible to make a decent trail network because of "private" property issues. I found it refreshing that in England I could go for a long walk and cross numerous private parcels of land without being chastised. There were gates and stiles and as long as you respected the system, there were no problems. I'm sure you have "bad apples" too, but it seems this system works and has been for hundreds of years. For some reason we feel our access laws need to be revolutionary instead of evolutionary. Too bad!

You used to be able to drive all the way up to the Olympic hotsprings in the Olympic Forest. Then the road washed out and they decided not to fix it. The walk in became a few miles longer. But to me, the effect was hugely positive. No more keg parties, broken glass, fat rednecks who got out of breath in 50 yards. The olympic hotsprings are still fairly crowded, but the area is not destroyed and actually improving. This is one case where what Retro refers to is quite valid IMO. It's amazing what a few miles will do to keep the riff-raff out!

[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: David Parker ]

[Retrosaurus]

quote:

---

Originally posted by David Parker:

...not allow foot traffic up that dirt road is #$@$$@% ludicrous!!!! Hell, we should be able to ford the stream if the bridge was gone. This is one stinky RAT with a hidden agenda. And to think they can (try to) charge us for NON-ACCESS!!!! Not for a mili-second would I let this stop me from walking up that road if I really wanted. ...if conditions are right, up that road I will go. FUCK 'EM!!!!

---

Right on, David.

(Hidden agenda? It's always about the money.)

[Beck]

...I think that Peter Puget dude's some big dog with the AAC- but can't say who.

[erik]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beck:

...I think that Peter Puget dude's some big dog with the AAC- but can't say who.

---

in that case i do know......grrrrrrr

[Retrosaurus]

Peter, you are so right.

I now see the error of my ways. What we need is more access, easier access. Hell, the road should be paved, and plowed, kept open all winter. Hell, the road shouuld go all the way in to the Stuart-Colchuck trail junction. And a tram to the top of Aasgard. And up the North ridge of Stuart! Build steps on the trails! Hand rails! Handicapped access! Via Ferrata! An IMMENSE parking lot! A Mickey D's! Don't be selfish and think of YOUR WEEKEND TRIP. Think big. I want to share it with everyone. FUCK WILDERNESS. WE NEED HUMANITY. And we need it in The Enchantments. Thanks Peter.

[Uncle_Tricky]

I passed through Wenatchee this past week and happened to pick up a local paper. It mentioned that all climbing areas up the Icicle from Bridge Creek Campground would be closed to climbers while the salvage logging is going on from July 15 til ??? In addition to the Colchuck TH, it specifically mentioned Secret Dome, 8 mile Buttress, Bridge Creek Wall, Condor buttress, the Sword area, Bathtub Dome, the Egg rocks, 4th of July rock. Not sure if this is set in stone, so to speak, but that's the plan according to last week's Wenatchee World...

[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: Uncle Tricky ]

[Peter_Puget]

Scottp – No redirection here. Retro clearly did not answer my points and responded by ridiculous hyperbole and then called a cocksucker. These classy and erudite responses received the responses they deserved. I am assuming your post was sincere and not and attempt at being a smart ass or the result of a mordant personality.

To restate via direct quotes from my original post:

1. His main motivation seems to reduce “others” ability to easily access an area that he has quick and easy access to. [True I stand by this.]

2. If each choice is always analyzed by how it impacts me directly and in isolation, we will all wake up someday in some place we’d never imagined. Then when we say “how did we get here” it’ll too late. [i stand by this too.]

As long as climbers keep viewing access issues as Retro does (i.e. in isolation and with a selfish “how does it affect me” attitude) climbers will be screwed by the system or at best end up with something far less than they could have had.

[Fairweather]

Peter Puget,

I don't know who you are, but you are by far, the brightest beacon of reason on this web site. While I don't always agree with your positions, you are somehow able to convey the same point of view I possess on an issue without subjecting yourself to the same flamings that I so often receive. (although Retro's reply may be an exception)

I still find it amazing that crag climbers who probably voice support for The Access Fund, want to limit others ability to enjoy the outdoords.

No new roads!....but maintain the ones we've got!....I support the status quo!

[pope]

This is classic "Peter Puke-it". First he'll accuse of being selfish anybody who wants to preserve wilderness through limited access. His analytical abilities have been demonstrated to be rather undeveloped, and his contributions to this thread comply with the pattern (such as when he suggests that Retro favors limited access to mountain environs in the Leavenworth area only because he can blitz in there after work while guys out in Bremerton cannot. Peter, surely you believe that Retro would like to see untrampled meadows whether he's climbing in the Stuart Range on the weekend or whether he's visiting the Olympics on a long weekend. Why would you think we're stupid enough to believe otherwise?)

Another classic Peterism is to remind us that those who favor rock without bolts and meadows without criss-cross trails are motivated only by a sense of aesthetics, and that aesthetics are always subjective. Hence, according to Peter, the position is somehow "logically flawed".

When you get frustrated with Peter's mental midgetry, such as Retro did when he sarcastically suggested how we might improve access to Mt. Stuart, then Peter will make sophomoric jokes about lithium. When you reply with similar "wit", he'll admonish you about how we should strive for civility in the climbing "community".

Finally, when you grow weary of his BS and ignore Mr. Puget, he'll lurk in the shadows and reply to nearly all of your posts in an attempt to provoke a response. He might even post a fantasy climbing trip in which you go bolt chasing with him.

Fairweather, if you find Mr. Peter's drivel inspirational and illuminating, you're easily impressed.

[Fairweather]

Pope,

I personally prefer to take the gloves off and engage in a verbal idealogical slug-fest. I don't stoop to personal name calling, but I do enjoy attacking the ideas of "the other side" and applying appropriate labels.

What I admire about Mr Puget is his general civility and the fact that I know he will often defend a position with which he personally disagrees but knows is "right". I believe that a person who can argue both sides of an issue, even when they believe only one, is worthy of admiration.

[mattp]

I agree, Fairweather. Access issues are complex and a broad discussion will benefit all of us, but when we start calling each other cocksuckers and mental midgets, and when we think we have to assert our case to the nth degree in order to make a point, the discussion degenerates and some past argument about bolts takes over a discussion of the impending closure of the Eightmile road (I don't believe Puget's suggestion that Retro had a selfish motivation behind his initial post was quite in the same category of name calling because, although he did perhaps start the mud flinging, the statement that Retro sounded selfish when he suggested that he might support reduced access because it wouldn't negatively impact him was oriented toward a discussion of the issue rather than just a personal attack.

So lets get back to the topic. I agree with Retro that closing the road would probably lead to less impact in the Mountaineer Creek drainage, and it might also ease the permit situation somewhat. However, I generally believe that the existing roads ought to be kept open, and I personally don't think it is all that bad to have overuse at, say, Colchuck Lake or Eightmile Lake, because I feel the enjoyment that so many people derive in camping there is worth the cost. However, each situation is different, and I somehow feel differently about the Enchantment Basin -- I would actually support a ban on all camping above Lake Viviane because to me all the "social trails" and campsite scars up there are rather disturbing.

Back to the original topic of this thread, I do not find it surprising or improper that the Leavenworth Ranger district would close the road during construction of a bridge. They don't want to deal with people coming by when they may be operating heavy machinery or using explosives or whatever else they are going to do, and the cost as well as the environmental impact of building some detour route or managing traffic through the project probably wouldn't be (in my view) justifiable.

However, I do believe that public access (and particularly climber access) is much further down their list of priorities than I think it should be. When they replaced the bridge on the Mountaineer Creek trail several years ago, they removed the old bridge in the early Fall, and did not replace it until mid-summer the following year. This meant there were nine or ten months with no bridge, and being the conspiracy theorist that I am, I believe that at least a part of their reason for this was that if they made it just a little bit harder for us to get up there and have fun, they might have fewer rescues, less police work, and etc. Now, of course, it is equally possible that they wanted to spread the cost of the project over two budget years, but I take the more cynical view because I have had so many experiences where the rangers in that particular district were openly hostile to my recreational goals. So lets hope they don't close the road for six months, or a year, for a project that could be completed in three weeks (I have no idea if that would be feasible, I'm just saying I hope that they make reopening the road a priority.)

[ 03-09-2002: Message edited by: mattp ]

[ScottP]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Puget:

Scottp – No redirection here. Retro clearly did not answer my points and responded by ridiculous hyperbole and then called a cocksucker. These classy and erudite responses received the responses they deserved. I am assuming your post was sincere and not and attempt at being a smart ass or the result of a mordant personality.(snip).

---

Yeah, my post was sincere. No sarcasm intended.Retro stated an opinion on decreasing ease of access to what is undeniably an overused area.You respond by calling him selfish because he has quicker and easier access to the area in question (What, does he live at the trailhead?) I fail to see how anyone can have quicker access to an area when they can go no further on a closed road than anybody else. Distance driving to where you park is irrelevant.

"His main motivation seems to reduce “others” ability to easily access an area..."I see his motivation as wanting a reduction of "everyones” easy access to stop further degradation of a really nice place.What is selfish about that?

[Peter_Puget]

Quote from Scottp: “I fail to see how anyone can have quicker access to an area when they can go no further on a closed road than anybody else. Distance driving to where you park is irrelevant.”

Scottp simply imagine this two: people one at point A the other at point B. One is 35 miles from a trailhead. The other 3 hours. Now further assume their goal destination (point C) is a 5 mile hike from the trailhead. Now each person at his respective starting point begins their journey towards point C. I will not waste my time further specifying the details of how they journey, I am sure we know who will arrive first.

FW – Now see what you started! Actually, Pope has a history of even starting threads slamming me. One entitled Fragile Poster was a hoot. I tried to paste a link but although I found it via search I could not actually pull it up. BTW by searching on fragile poster you will find two hits the original thread and a second called something like Fruitcake Recipe for Xmas Climbers. Pope did throw in a wonderful slam on me in that thread. Check it out! I am sure the context of that post will enlighten you to the Pope.

Pope –

Hugs! We do need to go on that climbing trip!

Quote from Pope: Peter, surely you believe that Retro would like to see untrampled meadows whether he's climbing in the Stuart Range on the weekend or whether he's visiting the Olympics on a long weekend. Why would you think we're stupid enough to believe otherwise?

Of course he wants to see that. I would venture to say that virtually all cc.comers would prefer an “untrampled” meadow versus a trampled one. . Since I never suggested otherwise I am wondering why you wrote that? That, however, is not the issue; the issue is how competitive desires are managed vis-a-vis a scare resource.

Another quote from Pope: Another classic Peterism is to remind us that those who favor rock without bolts and meadows without criss-cross trails are motivated only by a sense of aesthetics, and that aesthetics are always subjective. Hence, according to Peter, the position is somehow "logically flawed".

Now now Pope. I have said that to “favor rock without bolts and meadows without criss-cross trails” is a value judgement not an argument. Those interested I would say go back and search our arguments. Dan’s Arch in December maybe would be a good starting point. Further research into Popes posts would show that he has repeatedly ridiculed those who hold different values from himself. Again, the trick is not in the judgements, but in managing equally valid yet often mutually exclusive goals with a scare resource. Popes strategy is to ridicule and belittle all those who have different values than himself.

[Fairweather]

For the record, I have only used this access once in 20+ years of climbing. I'm just glad the USFS is actually fixing an access road! But to those who want to make existing 2 day hikes and climbs all over our state into week long expeditions just so they can have a popular place all to themselves during their summers off, or during their long and frequent stretches of unemployment (and then cite bogus or minute environmental damage as the reason) I say.....yes, indeed you are being a bit selfish.

I'm wearin' my big silver suit, so flame away mo' fo's...

[ 03-09-2002: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

[ 03-10-2002: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

[ScottP]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Puget:

Quote from Scottp: “I fail to see how anyone can have quicker access to an area when they can go no further on a closed road than anybody else. Distance driving to where you park is irrelevant.”

Scottp simply imagine this two: people one at point A the other at point B. One is 35 miles from a trailhead. The other 3 hours. Now further assume their goal destination (point C) is a 5 mile hike from the trailhead. Now each person at his respective starting point begins their journey towards point C. I will not waste my time further specifying the details of how they journey, I am sure we know who will arrive first.(snip)

---

Perhaps you should think of it as spending the time creating a cogent argument.Assuming these persons are both driving, it matters not which is the further drive. They will both be doing a five mile hike. It is the hiking distance that was at the center of the debate, not where people choose to live in relation to where they choose to climb.

[Bug]

The one thing I have noticed that the Forest service ALWAYS does well is get factions fighting amoungst themselves.In 1987 the Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan and Environmental Statement was forced into a five year rework by a group of factions getting together and signing one piece of paper saying they all wanted the same thing.

You guys are shitting all over each other while the Forest Service is preparing to close down the one thing we all love.

[Peter_Puget]

Scottp - ????

Bug - You are right.

[mattp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bug:

The one thing I have noticed that the Forest service ALWAYS does well is get factions fighting amoungst themselves.

---

Bug, you give them too much power. They don't cause us to fight amonst ourselves, we are quite capable of doing that on our own.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bug:

You guys are shitting all over each other while the Forest Service is preparing to close down the one thing we all love.

---

A sad truth, I'm afraid, that applies to many of the issues we face in Leavenworth, at Vantage, or in the North Cascades National Park.

You can't blame the government for this situation, however. After all, would you expect the rangers to try to organize climbers so that the climbers can have more power to tell them how to do their jobs?

We will have more power as a user group when we are able to communicate and compromise enough to have a more cohesive presence in land management or law enforcement discussions.

[chucK]

So what do you think the odds are that those bridges are fine for another 10-20 years for normal passenger cars, but that it's important to

fix them now because they've fallen below spec for

loaded logging trucks?

[mattp]

I'd give you very high odds of being right about that, though it should be noted that the last time they did the so-called salvage logging operation in the Icicle, they used a giant helicopter to fly the logs out and if they did this again, they'd have no need to take loaded log trucks over those bridges.

I say "so called" because I belive that prior operation was a timber sale, not a salvage effort. They harvested trees for their size, regardless of whether they had fire damage or not.

[Matt_Anderson]

By the way, great bouldering on Asterisk pass, pee hungry goats make for great photos with Dragontail in the background.

[erik]

quote:

---

Originally posted by allison:

Ouch. Nice thread drift, guys. Had to skim all of Page 2.

I just got a permit in the mail for Aug 8-11. My buddies and I really want to off-trail it into Coney and beyond via the old logging road spur at the Colchuck TH. Assuming that there are not armed guards at the closure, seems like we might be able to park at eightmile TH and walk past the construction in the evening without making any major disruption. I've never been up that road past the eightmile TH, how feasable is it that if these bridges were under construction, that we could walk through? I am a climber, but the guys I'm going with are not, and we will not have any gear with us except maybe I'll bring a pair of slippers and a chalk bag.

---

allison,

crossing the icicle creek in aug should not be too bad, there is a mellow crossing at the camp ground...wading thorugh the creek...though i do not think that parking at 8 mile would be a good idea, especially if the rangers are aggro, might give them a new spot to harrass fun doers......probably start your hike later in the evening....after beers at the bar....

crossing 8 mile creek further up ther road about 4 miles(?) is real chill in aug just a little hopping...

the hike up the road is boring and easy....nice views of cannon mtn....adds 5 miles(?) one way...

matt, remember astrisk pass is at smith and asgard is in the stuart range....oops!!

though he is right the bouldering is off the hook, though save the weight and don't bring the chalk bag......