Icicle Vandals

[Pete_H]

Inviting the feds to manage anything is like asking a elephant to till your container garden. Good luck with that, my brothers!

 

I await next week's installment of Icicle Outrage!!!! .

 

 

Holy shitballs, you really are a closet Teabagger. Advocating smaller government, questioning federal involvement and everything.

 

On a side note, no one is arguing for more heavily managed Icicle, just maybe for a few more services and trails and such.

[tvashtarkatena]

The permit system will come once Pandora's box has been opened.

 

It Is Written (in the USFS playbook, particularly out of that office).

 

Not much closeted about my opinions concerning certain federal programs (neither health care and food stamps being at issue for me). I give talks on government surveillance, drug policy, and a few other shenanigans our leadership has foisted upon us. Philosophically, the Baggers and myself couldn't be further apart our values and how things should be versus how they are, not to mention our church attendance.

Edited October 12, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[Fairweather]

Clearly this is one more compelling argument for more heavily managing the Icicle - along with those 3 fire rings and that pile of misplaced boulderer poo.

 

I believe step one should to get an Icicle Creek HR department in place - after the Mission Statement is agreed upon (allow six m months), then build an Icicle Specific corporate culture from there, as befits a World Class Climbing Area.

 

Inviting the feds to manage anything is like asking a elephant to till your container garden. Good luck with that, my brothers!

 

I await next week's installment of Icicle Outrage!!!! .

 

 

Bingo! There is a certain irony in that this Icicle vandalism is the first post of its kind here--and closely follows the ass-handing that LMA got right here on this very site for bringing in the federal cavalry to manage "their" local crags. Not saying this is some sort of local false flag operation, but the timing of this little anecdote is curious, to say the least. Russian-yellow paint, speed-climber vandalism on public property has the locals howling--even as these same locals celebrate a more permanent type of vandalism on Castle Rock...

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I won't go so far as to say this is all a PR campaign either - I'm not sure the dots are connected in such an ordered fashion in our universe, and it needs to be said that some of those folks who have worked with the new climbing ranger program have also contributed an enormous amount to this community in just about every way one can do that. I may disagree with them on this particular issue - not that much apparently - many of them aren't pushing for the rangers, just accepting the program as a reality. I believe a strong climbing community NO response would serve the future of that area far better.

 

Preserve access? The only thing threatening access is the USFS itself, here. I say make the USFS go away and that problem is solved. Is this a trick question?

 

I will say that rare, anecdotal, but attention getting events often become the cornerstones of many a PR campaign. (reefer madness with a side of partial birth abortion anyone?). This distortion of reality invariably makes for bad or unnecessary policy.

 

I've been returning to rock climbing and, particularly the Icicle, this year a fair amount. I see little difference between the Icicle I first climbed in centuries ago and today, frankly. In fact, given the huge number of new routes, the place is more uncrowded than ever - depending on one's choice of crags. Considering the crowds (hint: its ALWAYS been crowded on peak days in the Icicle), the area seems to have been respected by most users, in addition to being a durable landscape by its nature.

 

I believe there the evidence that supports the new climbing ranger program has been vastly overblown. I would wager the sum total of the damage being discussed (minus the paint job) can probably can be cleaned up in an afternoon of not very hard work. If local climbing organizations or individuals are so concerned about all this supposed damage - put on some grubbies and take care of it. So far, no one, including the USFS, has presented any compelling data or evidence that would come close to justifying two new paid positions in the Icicle. If trails are to be improved, new rangers are not a necessary part of the process. Quite the opposite - their salaries skim money that could actually be spent on trail improvement (more administrators, please!)

 

I do look forward to more sign kiosks, however. The USFS really began one upping itself in the architectural wonders that are their newer sign kiosks after the NW Forest Program fleecing operation kicked in. America does love its signage. It always spruces the place up a bit, ya know?

 

One note: The Icicle is not...even remotely close... a 'world class climbing'. Don't get me wrong, I love the place, but it is a local cragging area few travel very far to access. It should be managed as such - that is, very minimally or not at all. It should NOT be managed like true World Class Climbing Areas - those go to areas where route setters go to take their game to the next level. Think about how true WCCAs are managed, and you may find the end game for the new climbing ranger program.

 

The debbils in the details. Words and their underlying philosophies often unveil the future.

 

Regarding the bolt debate - an anti-bolt aid climber would likely trump an anti gay legislator who rents a boy for his vacation week. I like really nice anchors. I like living.

Edited October 13, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[num1mc]

I won't go so far as to say this is all a PR campaign either - I'm not sure the dots are connected in such an ordered fashion in our universe, and it needs to be said that some of those folks who have worked with the new climbing ranger program have also contributed an enormous amount to this community in just about every way one can do that. I may disagree with them on this particular issue - not that much apparently - many of them aren't pushing for the rangers, just accepting the program as a reality. I believe a strong climbing community NO response would serve the future of that area far better.

 

Preserve access? The only thing threatening access is the USFS itself, here. I say make the USFS go away and that problem is solved. Is this a trick question?

 

I will say that rare, anecdotal, but attention getting events often become the cornerstones of many a PR campaign. (reefer madness with a side of partial birth abortion anyone?). This distortion of reality invariably makes for bad or unnecessary policy.

 

I've been returning to rock climbing and, particularly the Icicle, this year a fair amount. I see little difference between the Icicle I first climbed in centuries ago and today, frankly. In fact, given the huge number of new routes, the place is more uncrowded than ever - depending on one's choice of crags. Considering the crowds (hint: its ALWAYS been crowded on peak days in the Icicle), the area seems to have been respected by most users, in addition to being a durable landscape by its nature.

 

I believe there the evidence that supports the new climbing ranger program has been vastly overblown. I would wager the sum total of the damage being discussed (minus the paint job) can probably can be cleaned up in an afternoon of not very hard work. If local climbing organizations or individuals are so concerned about all this supposed damage - put on some grubbies and take care of it. So far, no one, including the USFS, has presented any compelling data or evidence that would come close to justifying two new paid positions in the Icicle. If trails are to be improved, new rangers are not a necessary part of the process. Quite the opposite - their salaries skim money that could actually be spent on trail improvement (more administrators, please!)

 

I do look forward to more sign kiosks, however. The USFS really began one upping itself in the architectural wonders that are their newer sign kiosks after the NW Forest Program fleecing operation kicked in. America does love its signage. It always spruces the place up a bit, ya know?

 

One note: The Icicle is not...even remotely close... a 'world class climbing'. Don't get me wrong, I love the place, but it is a local cragging area few travel very far to access. It should be managed as such - that is, very minimally or not at all. It should NOT be managed like true World Class Climbing Areas - those go to areas where route setters go to take their game to the next level. Think about how true WCCAs are managed, and you may find the end game for the new climbing ranger program.

 

The debbils in the details. Words and their underlying philosophies often unveil the future.

 

Regarding the bolt debate - an anti-bolt aid climber would likely trump an anti gay legislator who rents a boy for his vacation week. I like really nice anchors. I like living.

 

Just why do we need climbing rangers?

[Pete_H]

 

I believe there the evidence that supports the new climbing ranger program has been vastly overblown. I would wager the sum total of the damage being discussed (minus the paint job) can probably can be cleaned up in an afternoon of not very hard work. If local climbing organizations or individuals are so concerned about all this supposed damage - put on some grubbies and take care of it. So far, no one, including the USFS, has presented any compelling data or evidence that would come close to justifying two new paid positions in the Icicle. If trails are to be improved, new rangers are not a necessary part of the process. Quite the opposite - their salaries skim money that could actually be spent on trail improvement (more administrators, please!)

 

Those are good points. For me personally, I see increased cooperation between the climbing / outdoor community in the Leavenworth area as a positive step towards further development of the area as a recreational destination. As great as the Leavenworth kitsch Bavarian attraction is, I think it could be a better place if the economic base diversified into sustainable and natural attractions and sports like mountain biking, climbing, skiing, trail running, kayaking / SUP'ing, etc.

 

This would make 11worth a better place to live and visit and would be more enjoyable for us all.

 

In order to move in this direction, obviously more cooperation with land management agencies is important. A climbing ranger program would be one way to start down this path.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Um...I think the highways going in and out of 11worth are already at tourist saturation all season, so expanding the already substantial tourist base seems imprudent as well as probably impossible, unless substitution, not addition, is the objective.

 

Plus, I don't at all agree with productizing the wilderness in any way, shape, or form.

[Coldfinger]

obviously more cooperation with land management agencies is important.

 

Actually it ISN'T so obvious unless method matters more than result.

 

A good way to start a clusterf*!k is a blind belief in cooperation. Quite a few environmental groups and folks have sold their soul for "access" (aka "a seat at the table").

 

I would add the ideal of "development" is quite often the beginning of the end for a resource, even though the users might show up with SUP's & Bikes racked up. Still burning gas, flushing toilets and spending the big $$ on the gear and the look.

 

Seems like greenwashing has become the new normal, so please forgive me for being a tad caustic.

 

And while we're on the topic of sustainability and cooperation (at least as far as readability meets good sense), maybe we could ration words?

[Pete_H]

Spin it anyway you like, but I'd rather see Leavenworth be more similar to Canmore, Whistler, Durango, Withrop, etc. than Disneyland.

 

That said, you guys make extremely valid points but I think a balance can be achieved between adding amenities, like expanded bike, hike/run, ski trails or a local climbing gym(for example), and protecting the local wilderness "resource."

[tvashtarkatena]

You choose to live in T111KrautLand, you takes yer chances. Like it or not, an aging Merka's probably gonna dig the chicken dance even more with the passing years, so grab yourself a schnitzel and enjoy the umpapa show.

Edited October 13, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[Coldfinger]

Edited by tvashtarkatena (5 minutes 21 seconds ago)

 

Guess the umpapa show is better on Ritalin.

[JBP]

Today two of the Russian climbing team showed up as they said they would and clean all of the "chalk paint" off of the rock.

They do not plan to use any kind of paint on the rocks again.

They and we spent the rest of the day climbing on this beautiful fall day.

It was interesting that they knew many of the same people in Russia and around here that I know.

Ended up that the are very interesting climbers and have climbed all over the world.

I hope we can put an end to this post as it seems to have taken on a life of it's own.

This particular incident is over.

Jim Phillips

[CaleHoopes]

+1 JBP

[lancegranite]

Thanks for the update Jim. 11worth has a very large per capita population of climbers, skiers, bikers and boaters who live, work, own homes, pay taxes and who also frequent our local outdoor areas regularly. We are here for the long run. The people who work for the USFS are our friends and neighbors and guess what? They love all the same stuff. Nobody is going anywhere any time soon.

 

Working together with the USFS and other .gov or .org agencies is perhaps not cool to some, but it has long term rewards. Recently a many year co-operative effort to build a large network of legal mountain bike/ hiking trails at Ski Hill has become a reality. While other districts slowly let trails and roads fall to ruin, Castle Rock's trail system received a much due facelift with USFS/.org/local climber work party.

The actual construction of both of these projects was 99% private citizens or groups.

 

The local community will still keep taking care of the canyons, whether it's putting up routes, picking up trash, building trail, drinking beers around a fire or hiking into the mountains in the middle of the night to bring home a fallen friend. The people who live here are going to keep on working, recreating and living together, just like they always have.

JP: Thanks for all you have done over the years, it's appreciated.

Russ Ricketts

 

 

 

[JBP]

Thanks Russ!!

[Fairweather]

You choose to live in T111KrautLand, you takes yer chances. Like it or not, an aging Merka's probably gonna dig the chicken dance even more with the passing years, so grab yourself a schnitzel and enjoy the umpapa show.

 

[Pete_H]

That's funny and all but no one here is complaining about the faux Bavarianism and tourism. Sure, its part of the deal and many local climbers derive their income from the tourism industry. It is what it is.

 

However, of all people here its pretty ironic Tvash is advocating complacency when it comes to getting civicly involved or to making positive changes in our community.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

That's funny and all but no one here is complaining about the faux Bavarianism and tourism. Sure, its part of the deal and many local climbers derive their income from the tourism industry. It is what it is.

 

However, of all people here its pretty ironic Tvash is advocating complacency when it comes to getting civicly involved or to making positive changes in our community.

 

 

Well, the umpapa thing's been around a lot longer than you new 11worth immigrants. It transformed the town from a fruit warehouse to what it is today. I mostly ignore it, but do appreciate the better dining opportunities available because of it.

 

Regarding your other attempt to expose hypocrazy on the innernutz!!!, you've employed to age old innernut technique of generalizing anothers argument so you can win. If you'd like to discuss my public policy work, that's probably another forum and format, but suffice to say that one solution to bad public policy is simply not to do it. Climbing rangers in the Icicle are expensive, not necessary, and may lead to a much more restricted permit system just to crag there. This is not a positive change in the view of many climbers. The USFS has, after all, exhibited a trend towards more fees, more permits, more enforcement, and more fines. This is a slippery slope issue regarding an agency that has proven where its headed policy wise over many years.

 

I would also note the USFS didn't really engage the public at all in this regard - they provided a forum after the decision was made.

 

If locals want a mountain biking trail system on ski hill, great. Who cares? That's not what we're talking about here, however. We're talking about the future possibility of a restrictive permit system in a roadside cragging area. That is a very bad precedent.

Edited October 15, 2013 by tvashtarkatena

[Pete_H]

Well, the umpapa thing's been around a lot longer than you new 11worth immigrants. It transformed the town from a fruit warehouse to what it is today.

 

It actually used to be more of a timber community. But you would have known that if you'd taken the time to support our community by wandering downtown Leavenworth and eating some stuesel, visiting the non-profit Nutcracker Museum, or purchasing some headwear at the Hat Shoppe!

[Pete_H]

 

If locals want a mountain biking trail system on ski hill, great. Who cares? That's not what we're talking about here, however.

 

Actually, yes it is. As your compatriot in this argument, Mr. Fairweather, has pointed out elsewhere, "Unless a crag is on private property, it doesn't belong exclusively to you."

 

Our new mountain bike trail is not on private property, its on FS / public land. It was built through cooperation between the City, private MTB advocacy groups, and the Forest Service.

 

For further improvements and benefits to the outdoor community to progress it will be achieved by working with land management agencies. Here is a perfect opportunity.

 

Do you really think the threat of a permit system to crag in the Icicle is real? I can mine / log / cut trees down for firewood / hold a dirtbike rally / etc. all on Forest Service land legally, but the FS is going to close the Icicle to climbing? Really?

 

One single example has been brought up, throughout the whole country, of a crag in California closed to climbing because of environmental concerns regarding preservation of a green toothed frog and now all of a sudden a couple seasonal employees who want to help clean up and build a couple trails are going to lead to a permit system? You are seriously delusional.

 

Your argument is the logical equivalent of the far right-wingers ridiculous assertion Obamacare will lead to "Death Squads."

[genepires]

One single example has been brought up, throughout the whole country, of a crag in California closed to climbing because of environmental concerns regarding preservation of a green toothed frog and now all of a sudden a couple seasonal employees who want to help clean up and build a couple trails are going to lead to a permit system? You are seriously delusional.

 

While not road side crag, I remember climbing rainier without a permit. not so now. The rationale for the permit was to pay for the full time climbing rangers. The toilet rationale came a couple years later.

Denali is another data point.

 

While a true permit system might be off for the time being, I bet that parking permits will be needed soon.

Edited October 15, 2013 by genepires

[W]

I remember climbing rainier without a permit. not so now.

 

I do too but I also remember having to step very carefully when walking through Emmons Flats and actually seeing climbers using their ice axes to scrape human waste off their crampons. I also remember when two of my friends were killed after being dispatched to do a night rescue on the Emmons. One was an unpaid volunteer, the other was working for $8.85 an hour. While both were fit, they were both young and had little to no formal training in SAR. The initiation of the accident was believed to be the volunteer using broken crampons from the Schurman SAR cache which he had duct taped to his boots. The entire sar cache at that time was a collection of veritable junk: broken 20-30 year old gear. I saw all this gear personally, it was a complete disgrace.

 

 

The rationale for the permit was not to pay for the toilet but to pay for the full time climbing rangers. The toilet excuse came a couple years later.

 

Ranger salaries were one thing, but it also paid for a modernization of the SAR cache (see above) and equipment for SAR personnel to use, the construction of the toilets, training hours for the rangers with helicopters and high angle rigging seminars, and also, of great significance, the yearly (high) cost of flying dozens of 55 gallon drums full of human waste off the mountain, as well as thousands of blue bags. The latter was and continues to be a big part of the cost recovery.

 

This is implemented for a mountain with 10-12K of climbers per season, most of the use on two routes. I admit that the scope and size of this or any program are very much debatable entities, but as far as I know this is where the money goes. The permit fee stays in the park.

 

 

 

[genepires]

Thanks Mark. I did not intend to dismiss the work that the rainier climbing rangers do. was just trying to highlight a couple instances with climbing permits.

If I were more wordly, I would probably have more examples of rangers coming into are area, then access to the area being restricted.

Don't know the total backstory on Castle rocks near the city of rocks, but restrictions are going on there the last I heard.

 

On a side note, I think that I climbed with that friend of yours the day before he died on rainier. Blind date through a mutual friend. he was a good guy.

[W]

Gene, I didn't take your comments that way, I just want it to be clear that the Rainier program was formed out of many issues. There were climbing rangers on the mountain all the way back to the 70's. By the mid 90's the program was in disarray- training was scarce, the gear was destroyed, and the park was asking young rangers to go do dangerous rescues using poor equipment and their own gear for marginal pay. It took a double employee fatality to bring this neglect to the attention of the higher-ups. To me it is very regrettable that programs like these don't have the non-climbing public support to fund them through the general park budget and thus avoid these "special use fees". Climbing and mountaineering is a historic use of our lands. It's "special" to me and you but not in the same way the fee term is used.

 

I'm not yet sure what to think of the USFS Leavenworth program. My sense is that while it is not really needed, if it is going to proceed anyway, we should as a community try to work with them and also, given USFS history, continue to be vigilant to program creep and more fees and access restrictions.

[num1mc]

Gene, I didn't take your comments that way, I just want it to be clear that the Rainier program was formed out of many issues. There were climbing rangers on the mountain all the way back to the 70's

 

Probably more like the 1920's or thirties. Definitely by the late forties and early fifties with people like Georege Senner and the Molenaars, there was a system of climbing rangers.

 

But the need for "Climbing Rangers" on Rainier, in Alaska, the Tetons and Yosemite is miles different than the need on Bruce's Boulder.

Edited October 16, 2013 by num1mc