The American Alpine Journal

[Dru]

the following is from an email sent to me by Kelly Cordes, assistant editor of aaj.

in the

print version, we have to draw some boundaries or the

journal would be 1000 pages (which we cant afford to

print). In the meantime, you are correct about the

guidelines not being equally enforced particularly

the things in the Utah/Colorado desert. I think the

AAJ has gotten itself, over time, into somewhat of a

mess over this because weve been saying grade IV and

up. So, we dont get submissions from climbers doing

cool IIIs, for example, and then they see the desert

stuff and understandably get irritated. The best

explanation I can give on the desert thing (the 2001

AAJ was the first one I worked on, and John took over

as main Editor just last Feb so we both are fairly

new) is that there seems to be a strong historical

precedent (perhaps based on the high-adventure aspect

of desert climbing in American climbing history?) in

running the desert reports. I realize that this

doesnt justify continuing it, at least if we arent

going to run other things of that grade (supposed

grade that part can be very subjective, and Im not

sure how to get around it - ?).

 

So, weve been gradually (compared to before John & I

were involved) working on not running so many

individual short desert routes (the regional summaries

are a better place for these) and also getting more

info on cool things that maybe arent IV and up from

other areas, and running this info in more regional

summaries (such as Raphs Rockies summary). Our past

might haunt us here, because now many folks are like

they dont want our info but theyve been running

reports on 3-pitch desert routes for the last 30

years. But we have been in contact with some L48 PNW

climbers this fall who are going to be regional

correspondents for us and put together regional

summaries when theres things to report that arent

long enough for individual reports (and theyll also

let us know of other, bigger ascents). We definitely

want the info the fact is, for the PNW, we havent

received hardly anything since Ive been involved.

Ive even tried to be proactive in sending out emails

to the AAC regional chair there, the Access Fund

coordinator, a couple of guide services (since

sometimes the guides know of new route activity) and

friends who live there. Again, perhaps our past haunts

us. Things that meet our criteria, or are even

borderline we want the info. What we dont want (and

weve received things like this) are crag routes (Ive

had a one-pitch route submitted to me in the desert,

actually), regardless of difficulty, and things like

standard trade route ascents (weve also received

submissions from peoples guided vacation ascents of

volcanoes).

so this might reflect on some criticisms and comments aired here earlier? discuss.

Edited January 13, 2003 by Dru

[slothrop]

... there seems to be a strong historical

precedent (perhaps based on the high-adventure aspect

of desert climbing in American climbing history?) in

running the desert reports.

 

Huh? How is desert climbing more "high-adventure" than some alpine grade III in the Cascades or Sierras or wherever? You know, with glaciers and avalanches and thick brush and such? There's no brush in the desert!

[Dru]

i guess its the same way that a 5 pitch route in the fisher towers can be given grade VI....

[Dru]

who is/are the local pnw climbers aaj is recruiting to report and are they sprayers or not? is it skoog or perkins or forrest or borbon or who?

[Colin]

Gordy Skoog and I (along with several others) have been planning to put together somewhat of a regional report for the Washington section of the AAJ. This would include those Grade III climbs that there otherwise is not space for. Although I haven't really started poking around much yet (perhaps now I am?), I've already contacted Loren and Jens about their new route on Formidable. It is, for example, a cool new alpine route, but not Grade IV, and therefore not possible for inclusion otherwise.

 

So, perhaps this is a good time for all of you to speak up about other new routes (or perhaps first winter ascents, etc.) of 2002.

[chelle]

Peter Ackroyd recently included this in an email to all Cascade Section members. He is the section chair and is trying to invigorate the members to be more active.

 

"2002 Climbing Activities – I received quite a few responses to my request for some brief accounts of your notable climbing activities this year for possible inclusion in the AAJ Section Report. I have to submit our Section Report by January 1st so please send any further notes right away! I want to make it clear that this information is not for use in the main section of “Climbs and Expeditions” that requires a lot more specifics and is, I believe, only for Grade IV climbs and above. If you want to be considered for inclusion in that section then you should submit the details to the AAJ Editor directly. "

[Ade]

John Harlin's email address for AAJ submissions is aaj@americanalpineclub.org but as has already been pointed out the deadline has passed.

 

 

[cj001f]

Huh? How is desert climbing more "high-adventure" than some alpine grade III in the Cascades or Sierras or wherever?

 

You could argue desert climbing is more high adventure because of the very low integrity of the rock, which makes the routes much more "interesting" than the Sierran Granite. Of course by this argument any chosspile that can support multiple pitches is worthwhile......

[slothrop]

Hmm. What are the approaches like for some of the classic desert climbs? A short hike off a Nat'l Park Road? Miles of trekking through featureless desert? Any significant elevation? Rough terrain? It seems to me that Cascade approaches would involve rougher travel with more elevation gain, if not longer distances, too.

[nattybumppo]

Why argue whether desert climbing is more high adventure? As the AAJ reply makes clear, reporting low grade (as in short, not bad) ascents in the desert is an artifact of the journal's history. Time was, the desert towers were unquestionably the sites of remarkable, pioneering climbing from any number of perspectives, particularly the poor "rock" (really just towers of...what? Igneous mud? Baked clay? Metamorphic dino poodoo?) quality, as you've noted, and the challenges related to that. But also for being American climbs that favorably compared to what was being done around the world in terms of topographical uniqueness and heightened standards of commitment. Not that new climbs aren't still being done there, but it's simply not as fresh. So it's not just "any chosspile," it's the place in history. (And really, I'm a jingo for the Cascades and all, but you've got to see that there's bad Cascade rock and then there's that stuff in the Southwest. I wouldn't go ten feet off the deck on that crap.)

 

Anyway, the best reply of all to the AAJ is to put up new Cascade routes that satisfy their reinvigorated criteria. Onward! Upward! And all that stuff.