Welcome Leavenworth Climbing Rangers

[jordansahls]

I think this illustrates a broader issue, that being the trend of wilderness advocacy groups trending towards over-regulation of our National parks and wilderness areas. I would argue that a lot of what is wrong with things these days revolves around the fact that people are less connected to the natural world than they have ever been. How can we expect people to protect what they haven't experienced? It's a tough balance between preservation and use but I strongly believe that keeping access easy and people connected to the wild places in the US is worth the additional stress is puts on the wilderness. The extreme stance that groups like WW take are counterproductive. Will their policies and agenda preserve the wilderness? Yes. But, if it locks people out and discourages recreation then what's the fucking point? I guess I always assumed that the point of preservation was to insure that all future generations would be able to actively experience what the land has to offer.

Edited September 27, 2013 by jordansahls

[Rad]

I agree with Jordan. While human impact is something to mitigate, and perhaps concentrate to preserve the wildest areas, we want as many voters to have direct outdoor experiences with forests, rivers, cliffs, boulders, and mountains as possible. This will increase the chance they will vote and/or act to protect these resources. A trail may seem like a large impact to an area, but it's much smaller than a copper mine, a clearcut, or a sheep farm. Changes in land use designation are the real danger, not a few bolts or cairns. Rainier and the Enchantments may be safe, but less visible or visited areas might not be so safe. Darrington comes to mind. Logging jobs vs climbing access and preservation? Guess which way the vote would go there?

 

[Fairweather]

I've kind of gathered a picture, based solely on this thread, that this is largely an effort led by local climbers who hope to restrict access (or reduce numbers) to "their" crags and wilderness--by usurping the language of environmentalism, wrapping it in a loose package that they have named the "Leavenworth Mountain Association"(a group with no 501c3 or .org status), and then supposing to represent the broader climbing community in an effort to bring in additional federal enforcement toward the realization of their goal. The dripping hostility toward and mockery of outsiders and dissenters in this very thread is plain to see. The irony, of course, is that most (all?) of these locals are likely transplants from the west side. Sorry if this conclusion upsets the LMA membership--or sounds paranoid--but I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way. By their own account, the Icicle "is as free and beautiful as ever." So why else the fuss?

 

It was an incredible meeting and the LMA felt honored to be solicited to help in the founding steps of this new program. I left the meeting feeling like I was part of a historic collaboration with the USFS and the climbing community and perhaps could be a model in the future for other districts across the US.

 

Since the meeting the LMA has continued to be solicited for advice and collaboration on their local projects and it has been an absolute pleasure to work with Adam and his volunteer rangers.

 

I do wonder what the negative posters on this thread have done to personally give back to the climbing community.

 

Overall your guy's tones seem pretty doomsday apocalyptic climbing ranger. It was simply a group of motivated and concerned individuals looking to figure out how to minimize impact to this great resource and preserve it for future generations to come.

 

The climbing community hasn't self regulated these impacts so maybe this would be a good project for the climbing rangers.

 

Seeing that in writing is pretty good reason to disregard what you are writing based on a demonstrated bias at odds with reality and/or simple illiteracy on your part.

 

Now I WILL make you a suggestion.

 

There is no current climbing management plan.

 

I would like to say that it is not the intent of the program to restrict access or create new user fees. Instead of more restrictions, we have been developing ideas on how we can use positive management techniques and education.

 

As a climber and a local resident I fully support the project.

 

I think this conspiracy goes even higher; to the alien lizard people who not only control the Forest Service, but control the President and Congress too. I for one will be wearing my tinfoil climbing helmet from now on whenever I crag or boulder in the Icicle, and I recommend you do the same.

 

Thanks for the input Mark, Pete, Sol, Darin, Rad (basically anyone using their actual name) - if I skip over the various anonymous rantings, this discussion is interesting and informative!

 

resource

resource

resource

resource

 

Bing Images

Edited September 27, 2013 by Fairweather

[Water]

Pete why belittle AlpineMonkey's point? He didn't mention one thing about conspiracy. He talked about different environmental and outdoors group influences in DC along with policy that's been set in DC. Do you really think that someone in FS admin is thinking about how they can make a better trail for climbers? If anything they're looking for ways to cut spending and monetize any possible resource. The involvement of lots of outdoor groups signals lots of users.

 

Not every instance of getting screwed over is as complex as an Alex Jones fan would have you think, sometimes its just plain to see you're getting screwed. Such as an Ohio congressman originated Fee Demo...

 

"From 1965 until Fee-Demo was authorized in 1996 as a rider to the Department of the Interior appropriations bill, recreation fees were controlled by the provisions of 16USC460l(6a). Fee-Demo temporarily superceded them. With the passage of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) in 2004 as a rider to the omnibus appropriations bill, Fee-Demo was revoked and the 16USC460l(6a) provisions were permanently repealed. The primary purpose of both Fee-Demo and FLREA was the repeal of the 16USC460l(6a) provisions, or so this author would contend. Repeal of this provision would not only permit land managers to collect fees for a wider range of products, goods, and services, repeal would also permit land managers to retain the fees they collect. By providing this alternative funding mechanism, Congress was free to slash allocated funding and to force land managers to become reliant upon user fees, concessionaire fees, public-private partnerships, volunteerism, and other funding."

 

Excerpt from Privatization: An Overview. By Scott Silver

[olyclimber]

Seems like the Leavenworth "locals" haven't quite cornered the market on hostility.

 

I believe most/all the quotes above were responses to hot headed replies. When I read them, any mockery or hostility was a bit in response to the accusations being hurled.

 

To me it is unclear whether it was the LMA or the FS that initiated whatever this program is.

 

I do see that they say they LMA have filed for 503c:

http://leavenworthma.blogspot.com/p/finances.html

 

 

For me the worst of the Icicle has been when I had to submit to the terrors of the pay campground hosts and their misinformation. The best has been climbing out there without seeing another soul. I'm not a part of the LMA or even know much about them, but I'm good friends with a number of the people starting it. And a couple of them...well I don't see them as the types that want to limit access to those carrying an LMA card or some other crazy notions.

 

I do think climbers need to be engaged with land managers, and work with them to preserve access. I thought this was just another case of that, and I have seen it work very well before (the WCC comes to mind, Index to name one example).

So someone please explain (not with wild speculation or theory) why this is construed as "locals attempting to limit access to outsiders"?

 

Again, I have nothing to do with the LMA other than I'm friends with some of the people starting it.

 

As far as "more government regulation of the resource" and any outcry over that...well I get that, and understand that, and I agree to some point. I mean one reason to get outside and go climbing is to get away from The Man. And since I'm not privey to everything going on in the Icicle, I did think that self-regulation was working pretty well to this point, so I'm unclear as to why it is necessary.

 

 

[telemarker]

I did think that self-regulation was working pretty well to this point, so I'm unclear as to why it is necessary.

 

 

Well if you recall when Adam introduced himself, he did point out that he spoke with, "A duo of climbers," who were shut down at Playground Point because of crowds, most likely on a weekend. Gasp! No way! I could not even imagine the Duo of climbers' disappointment when they then went to Roto Wall and too found it very busy.

 

Clearly management needs to be instituted. Signage and climber education would have prevented this unfortunate incident for Duo of climbers. I would hate to think that duo would need to open the guidebook to search out a possible alternative crag.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I did think that self-regulation was working pretty well to this point, so I'm unclear as to why it is necessary.

 

 

Well if you recall when Adam introduced himself, he did point out that he spoke with, "A duo of climbers," who were shut down at Playground Point because of crowds, most likely on a weekend. Gasp! No way! I could not even imagine the Duo of climbers' disappointment when they then went to Roto Wall and too found it very busy.

 

Clearly management needs to be instituted. Signage and climber education would have prevented this unfortunate incident for Duo of climbers. I would hate to think that duo would need to open the guidebook to search out a possible alternative crag.

 

Yeah, maybe they can block the path of unregistered climbers like they do now on the Colchuck and Snow Creek TH's

 

"Where are you going? Your pack looks too big for a day hike..."

 

[dberdinka]

I've kind of gathered a picture, based solely on this thread, that this is largely an effort led by local climbers who hope to restrict access (or reduce numbers) to "their" crags and wilderness

 

 

Sure everyone in Leavenworth wants more regulation and restricted access to the local mountains. That makes a lot of sense!

 

Your ability to find a conspiracy in every event combined with your inflamed sense of victimization by the "Other" is just so darn....Conservative!

[Fairweather]

More libertarian, actually. And based on the responses here I'd say it's an increasingly popular sentiment--or at least one more nuanced than the typical right/left worldview. Again, to me it looks like a local agenda trying to gain traction on public/federal land--while it waits for real teeth to appear. Regulations and restrictions are always easier to navigate when you live three minutes away. In any event, I have spoken with Woody Goomsba, and he is not happy.

[DPS]

 

"Where are you going? Your pack looks too big for a day hike..."

"I like to carry my courage in my rucksack."

 

[Fairweather]

[video:youtube]LQfdSBq7flw

[Pete_H]

Pete why belittle AlpineMonkey's point? He didn't mention one thing about conspiracy. He talked about different environmental and outdoors group influences in DC along with policy that's been set in DC. Do you really think that someone in FS admin is thinking about how they can make a better trail for climbers? If anything they're looking for ways to cut spending and monetize any possible resource.

 

Except that this project indeed appears to be undertaken and limited to the local level. Perhaps I misunderstood Craig's point but it sure seemed to me he was arguing that this little project was the fruit of government agencies and environmental groups Tolkienian quest for "money and power." I think that's reading a little bit too much into it.

 

At any rate, we can probably all agree that Wilderness Watch are goofy extremo conservationists. However, it seems silly to turn our backs on a potential good thing just because they support the issue. I would guess Wilderness Watch is against heli-clearcut-logging of thousand year old bristlecone pines in the NCNP. Does that mean the climbing community should be for it just because they're against it?

[AlpineMonkey]

My point was that this program is supported by agendas that I don't believe are in the interest of the individual climbers. Hopefully this program looses funding and disappears.

 

This is how all regulation starts. Below are examples of where this may lead:

 

You'll be paying for a Special Use Permit to climb Mount Stuart or Dragontail, one that you must obtain a year in advance. You'll be filling out NEPA papers to fix an anchor. They'll be closing down Snow Creek Wall when they find an endangered "weed". There will need to be an ESA consultation to climb every route you can imagine. When you get your consultation back, the determination will go something like... that endangered weed was food for a bug which was food for endangered salmon, which are food for endangered killer whales...so no, you can't climb that wall or we will sue you for killing endangered weeds, salmon and killer whales. <---That was not a joke

 

The bad part is that if this program continues and is supported in the future, once you realize that you made a mistake, it will be too late. Saying "I told you so" after the fact isn't going to fix that I could potentially no longer climb "free" (or aid) in the mountains.

 

 

[Water]

Very well said AlpineMonkey. This is my hope for this, that the program runs its course and then gets no more funding and goes away. Observation of staging areas, monitoring of flora/fauna, this is all quantifying and creating baseline data of the area. Getting input from user groups helps to quantify people numbers. Now WW has something to work with other than ideology alone. As do FS admin. Sure it is funded by a WA state agency but you don't think information isn't available to DC when setting longer-term agenda/FS planning? Or when DC tells region 6 in 4 years that their funding is going to be cut by 20%, WRRD doesn't see an opportunity to use this resource to help make up the difference? Right now it is an educational outreach and resource monitoring. It is so incredibly naive to think that tomorrow (2, 3..5 years) it is not permit enforcement and flora/fauna protection. This 'two year grant' is easily the path to that. It is quite possible this does not lead that way, but history is not so favorable in that regard.

 

Personally I think those involved orgs that represent climbers should have done all they could to get assurances that this in no way leads to additional restrictions (in the future) before they cooperated with it. But hey people were thrilled the FS reached out for input instead of acting unilaterally (which speaks to these people's normal perception of the FS, and the FS's poor track record in many arenas)

[NoahT]

AlpineM, Water, Fair (recent posters) if you have the time, I would be interested in specific examples of areas, or cases, where this sort of progression has taken place. I'd love to read more about it. And to be clear, not the Wilderness Watch horror stories, which few of us would stand behind. I'm trying to think specifically about climbing ranger programs that have led to measurable barriers on access.

 

I'm not being snarky, either. Seriously. On this issue, I reside somewhere in between skeptical and naive. I feel I understand pretty clearly where the OPEN TO IT crowd comes from. That point-of-view comes naturally to me. But I have reservations, and I follow your logic. So, I'd be interested in specific examples, if any come to mind.

 

Sometimes CC is more fun to just spew on, but I don't think that's where you're coming from. So, if you can share some specifics, it's much appreciated.

 

N

[Fairweather]

AlpineM, Water, Fair (recent posters) if you have the time, I would be interested in specific examples of areas, or cases, where this sort of progression has taken place. I'd love to read more about it. And to be clear, not the Wilderness Watch horror stories, which few of us would stand behind. I'm trying to think specifically about climbing ranger programs that have led to measurable barriers on access.

 

I'm not being snarky, either. Seriously. On this issue, I reside somewhere in between skeptical and naive. I feel I understand pretty clearly where the OPEN TO IT crowd comes from. That point-of-view comes naturally to me. But I have reservations, and I follow your logic. So, I'd be interested in specific examples, if any come to mind.

 

 

 

The NPS "climbing programs" at Rainier and Denali come to mind--although the ranger efforts at the latter seem to offer climbers at least limited value for their money. On the USFS side, I'd point you to the pay-to-play fiasco down at Mount St. Helens. The arbitrary 100 climber-per-day limit has created an artificial demand for the climb that would otherwise not exist, and the fees go to support some bogus "Mount St. Helens Institute." The scheme is already similar for the Enchantments and popular areas throughout the West. Mount Whitney comes to mind. The "Volcano Pass" that the FS tried to implement has been a failure that I believe the program no longer exists. (If it does, I guess I'm a scofflaw.) And then, of course, there is the famous "Fee Demonstration Program" that continues on to this day--even as more and more public access is strangled off with each passing year. The tragedy is that the alliance between climbers and conservationists--who worked hand-in-hand to create MRNP in 1899, Olympic in 1938, NCNP in 1968, and to pass the Wilderness Act in 1964--no longer exists. And the USFS, fresh off 100+ years of Pinchot's "multiple use" fantasy, now justifies its existence by treating recreation as its new commodity. The environmental "concerns" of orgs like the NCCC and LMA are simply a convenient lever the USFS can use to artificially intensify demand and then regulate for $$.

[AlpineMonkey]

Here is a classic example where the USFS implements a plan based on monitoring, looses funding, and climbing is closed.

 

http://www.accessfund.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=tmL5KhNWLrH&b=5001177&ct=6794299

 

If you need more examples of various agencies and groups closing climbing when involved, just scroll through these:

 

http://status.accessfund.org/

[Pete_H]

Williamson Rocks is one example nationwide that Craig has provided. The "more examples" are mostly information about access concerns pertaining to private land and some seasonal raptor nesting closures, which we're all familiar with anyway.

 

Any link between the climbing Ranger program leading to restricted access is tenuous at best.

[Water]

fair covered it broadly but well.

 

recreation.gov? It is a subsidiary of ticketmaster. Just keep that in mind. Or at least everything I can research indicates as much--totally open to eat crow if someone can prove otherwise. But if you've ever enjoyed buying access to an event from ticketmaster you understand why it is such a joy to use recreation.gov to book something. And hey, who cares if a private company siphons off a few of yours dollars when you pay to access public lands your tax dollars pay to 'manage'...

 

Well look in the access issues forum for the menagerie wilderness issue currently happening. A climber attempted to help the FS by relaying bird information obtained while following their rules. Ultimately climbers are getting pinched on access now. Agenda, vendetta, conspiracy, rule change, whatever, it aint benefiting climbers.

 

In my own backyard you use to need a (FREE) permit to go to Pamelia Lake [Mt. Jefferson] or the Obsidian area [North and Middle Sister]. You use to be able to pick it up at the fancy Detroit Lake ranger station, for free. No more. It was too much of a bother for them so now you have to pay $6 to buy it online. Or if there is space, you pay $6 at the FS building. Credit card only (further disenfranchisement) It is my understanding (possibly incorrect) now that they also altered the rules and that you need to have that permit in order to 'pass through' these areas. So for a day climb of Mt. Jefferson's west rib, the most logical access being via Pamelia TH, you need to buy a $6 permit online. You can never get a refund if you can't make it. And if you can't go or need to change the dates, turn it to overnight, add people, etc, you must buy a new permit. They encourage you to cancel your permit if you can't make it (no refund) so others can go. Next year maybe I will spend $100 to book 12 party groups every good summer weekend just to fuck with this system. Certainly this is begging to see a court room and get thrown out. And please disabuse me of my understanding if I am wrong. But when I have spoke with the FS they have said yes you need said permit to 'pass through' the area. goddamn i am getting irate just telling this story.

 

 

Fairweather described the Mt. St. Helens Debacle but I'll put some numbers on it for you. As of July 22nd 2012, the MSHI had sold 13,934 permits to climb MSH in 2012. MSHI is a private non-profit. The permits cost $22. $15 goes to the forest service [$209,000] who is on the hook for the road access, the camping, privy, enforcement... $2 goes to the online processing company/mailing you the piece of shit tyvek permit. $5 goes to MSHI. 13,934 * 5 = ??... ~$70,000. MSHI website use to say this was a mandatory donation (Waybackmachine.com) but now update to call it a service fee (fun semantics). They say it goes to the MSHI Climber's Brigade who 'maintain' the trail (free volunteers). What they spend it on is their events, guided trips, outreach, benefits? There is no possible way they could even hope to account for spending it to maintain the 'trail'. And they have admitted to as much when I have confronted them. Keep in mind they harvest $70,000+ a year from the public. To access a public resource. They could pay me $45,000 a year and I would be there 365 and pick up people's poop.

 

Pete it is obvious this two year program does not intend any restrictions. It will be observation and monitoring and 'outreach', that is clear. But really will you bury your head in the sand that this can in no way be the footing upon which restrictions are built from in the future? It is totally in another realm or dimension all together? We would have to agree to disagree if you think so. I don't need underground conspiracy information or great reassurances from Adam (who ultimately controls jackdiddly for these two years) to call it as I see it.

 

Edited September 28, 2013 by Water

[mthorman]

I tend not to get involved in these debates, however I wanted to thank AlpineMonkey, Water, and Fairweather for providing specific examples. Many times it seems there is more theory and opinion thrown around during these conversations. But I appreciate the facts and statistics from cases that have happened in previous years.

 

I think we can all agree that the amount of climbers at Icicle and most every other "wilderness" climbing location has increased over the last 20 years. And I think we can also agree that we want these locations to be as we best remembered them for when our kids climb. However things get muddy when we talk about how to manage, preserve, and maintain these areas.

 

My personal opinion is that there is a fine line to walk between both sides. I don't think climbers need signs telling them turn by turn how to get to cliffs. I mean look at the recent FS rescue story about climbers on 4th and low 5th class terrain in over their heads. If climbers can walk to the cliffs with no knowledge of the climb or area what has that helped? I personally enjoy spending hours researching routes before I go. To me it is part of the fun and it also allows me to be familiar with the ascent, descent etc. On the flip side I also have seen numerous times where climbers AND other backcountry users are not following LNT practices (Leave no Trace). Specifics usually include poop, garbage, and erosion due to trail short cutting. Personally I don't know what the answer. I do think that if everyone who went to the outdoors took a little more personal responsibility of the area they were in, we would be a lot better off in 50 years.

 

I just want to close by saying that I hope this new program does not turn this area into more of a permit nightmare than it already is. I mean do you need a discover pass or northwest FS pass for parking. You need an overnight permit for the enchantments but if you bivy outside of the zones you are ok. My point is that I hope someday when my kids want to climb Outer Space they don't have to pay $20 and put in for a lottery drawing in March so they can climb it in August!

[AlpineMonkey]

Last comment and I am done on this thread.

 

Everything that this program is doing or has done is why we have the AAC, WCC, Access Fund…even LMA. All these organizations can lobby for climbers to kick over cairns and cut old tat if that is what the broader climbing community thinks is important. We don’t need the federal government to do this for us.

 

https://secure.rco.wa.gov/prism/search/ProjectSnapshot.aspx?ProjectNumber=11-1121

 

[Sol]

While the accusatory speculations from some on this thread are frustrating, overall I think this discussion is very important and there is some great points that have been presented. I think it is absolutely crucial that the FS know that there are many folks concerned that a Climbing Ranger program will restrict access and cause increased user fees in the WRRD. This was my first statement at the Roundtable discussion.

 

Again, I will state, the Leavenworth Mountain Association had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of a Climbing Ranger Program in Leavenworth.

 

We first learned of this program during our Icicle Clean-Up event in April from a ranger we had invited to give a Leave No Trace practices talk.

 

To date the LMA has attended one meeting with the rangers in the WRRD, the Roundtable Discussion.

 

I am quite proud of the work the Leavenworth Mountain Association has done up to this point. We are a diverse group of 11 individuals, who have been working hard, for free, to create a education based non-profit. I am happy to clarify, why we came together, what we have done thus far, and what we plan on doing in the future.

 

We are not a membership organization, our events and clinics are open to all. We originally came together in the Fall of 2011 in an effort to create a local indoor climbing space, which remains our main goal.

Mission Statement: Leavenworth Mountain Association's mission is to foster safe, healthy, and environmentally conscious mountain recreation through the establishment of high quality educational programs and the development of community resources for youth and adults in the Greater Wenatchee Valley.

 

Past projects: We have hosted a number of mountain sports related slideshows, movies, and potlucks to inspire, educate, and connect the local community. This past winter we conducted a Snow Safety Education Series which included two Avalanche Awareness Clinics from NWAC, a Companion Rescue Clinic, and a Tour Planning Clinic. In April we hosted the first annual Icicle Creek Clean-Up in which we collected and disposed of trash/waste from along the Icicle and Tumwater canyons as well as a Leave No Trace educational presentation by the WRRD, and a BBQ/Raffle. LMA has partnered with the Leavenworth Ski Hill in securing an Avalanche Beacon Practice Park from BCA, which, when it arrives, will be implemented locally to give the community a free and convenient place to practice companion beacon rescue. Most recently LMA participated in a Castle Rock trail upgrade spearheaded by the WCC and Access Fund.

 

Future Goals: We have a variety of short term and long term goals for the LMA. Largest on the list is a Community Center, open to all, including an indoor climbing facility, mountain based pre-school, library, presentation space, mountain/dirt bike pump track, ski-tuning work area, and community activities space. Along with that we plan on creating a Youth Climbing Team/Club/Camps. In a step towards our greater goal of creating a Community Center we are striving to open an indoor community climbing space by Winter of 13-14. We will continue our Winter Snow Safety Education Series annually with the exciting addition this year of scholarships for free and/or reduced Level 1 Avalanche Education Courses. Furthermore, the LMA has plans to create a traveling High School/Middle School presentation focusing on outdoor recreation as a means to combat youth obesity, diabetes, depression, and bullying. The LMA will continue to host our community events as well as the Annual Icicle Clean-Up. Finally, the LMA is excited to work with the USFS, AAC, WCC, and Access Fund in improving access and sustainability to outdoor pursuits in the Leavenworth area.

 

Website: http://leavenworthma.blogspot.com

Facebook: www.facebook.com/LeavenworthMA

 

[obwan]

Sol:

Thanks for the time and effort, and excellent/informative write-up. We need a few level heads to continue on with this process, and it is appreciated. So stay cool, hang in there and hopefully I can go over it with a few biers and you guys when I make it to Leavenworth. But, please pay attention to AlpineMonkey's input. (wow - 6 pages)

Bonjour,

James

[obwan]

I'm back.

 

"Where are you going? Your pack looks too big for a day hike..."

 

This is amazing! I remember the same speech in the early nineties - what is going on? De-ja-vu.

It's kinda like the Border questions - answer where and why simply, with the smallest of detail, as to not open another issue.

Duh! My double rack (day pack) weighs over 30 lbs.

I just awoke from my slumber and just wanted to lighten this up a bit, sorry. I'll be bailing also from the blog.

[Coldfinger]

While the accusatory speculations from some on this thread are frustrating

 

Look, one big lesson here has to be the importance of HOW one communicates.

 

Sol, many of us were simply communicating our viewpoints, with absolutely no intent to make a personal attack. You took a few swipes at folks, but since you were vague and a little cute about "who" that was, I have to say your antagonism probably overshadowed your message. It is hard, but you gotta keep your cool.

 

I do understand what being a "local" means but keep in mind the LMA does not represent every local, that the climbing is probably more heavily used (in terms of "user days") by non-locals, that we ALL own it, and what happens there in Icicle DOES set a precedent for what could or will happen in my "locals" world.

 

Put another way, you put yourself out there and yes not everybody is going to approve. It's unpleasant but that is what happens. We all don't agree.

 

Adam, I was particularly non-plussed by your caption to the photo you posted of a food cache taped to a tree, namely that you used "the climbers" as the subject of your sentence. For one thing I AM a climber and would use an appropriate pronoun. For another posting that pic publicly with that somewhat condescending and non-inclusive tone kinda makes you look like an arrogant you-know-what.

 

Coupled with the cairn kicking pic, you kinda set a heavy duty tone. Not a great start.

 

Do keep in mind that many of the posters here have been doing trail work, picking up trash, cleaning toilets, installing anchors and cleaning new routes for a VERY long time, probably some longer than you been around this earth. And yes some of us have even been PAID to do it!

 

So... smile chances are you will be getting a TON of help with your projects.

 

What's my point here?

 

I dunno, just hope we can all tie in and have a beer sometime and that it will all be good. Not too long ago I was on one of those big group trips and it turns out a friend's boyfriend and I had had a big dustup here on CC.com. My friends didn't believe me when I told them he would definitely remember, so the look on his face when he blurted out "You're Coldfinger!!!" was priceless. Turns out we had a great trip, really enjoyed getting to know the guy, and ironically he is now in Leavenworth.