|
micahmcguire
May 4, 2003, 5:10 PM
Post #26 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
dammit, and I WAS going to do the west butt next summer. well, Marcus Baker and Mt. Spur here we come! Some goddamned dumb ranger neads a flogging.
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
May 5, 2003, 2:45 PM
Post #27 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
quick survey - how many major peaks have the people appauding the fixed anchors done? my guess is 0, or a number very close to it. an ascent doesn't count if you were guided - that makes you a tourist, not a climber. call me an elitist, but i think guiding is immoral and should be outlawed on peaks like denali. i think the only people going up there should have earned the experience. i think people going up there should do everything in their power to stay out of trouble, and should expect to get themselves out of it if they do. whatever happened to people building competence gradually in the lower mountains before graduating to the high peaks? whatever happened to people taking pride in their abilities and self-sufficience? fixed gear like this is trash, plain and simple(or better yet booty as wallrat said). why the hell do we need these places to be more accessible? i want them less accessible. i want to vomit when i see basecamp at a place like aconcagua where you can buy a beer and a steak. i want longer approaches, no porters, fewer crowds, and cell phones safely charging on your kitchen counter back home. i've realized where to find this now - any large mountain my mom has never heard of. hopefully won't see you in the backcountry.
|
|
|
|
|
renobdarb
May 5, 2003, 3:37 PM
Post #28 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Posts: 393
|
In reply to: quick survey - how many major peaks have the people appauding the fixed anchors done? my guess is 0, or a number very close to it. an ascent doesn't count if you were guided - that makes you a tourist, not a climber. call me an elitist, but i think guiding is immoral and should be outlawed on peaks like denali. i think the only people going up there should have earned the experience. i think people going up there should do everything in their power to stay out of trouble, and should expect to get themselves out of it if they do. whatever happened to people building competence gradually in the lower mountains before graduating to the high peaks? whatever happened to people taking pride in their abilities and self-sufficience? fixed gear like this is trash, plain and simple(or better yet booty as wallrat said). why the hell do we need these places to be more accessible? i want them less accessible. i want to vomit when i see basecamp at a place like aconcagua where you can buy a beer and a steak. i want longer approaches, no porters, fewer crowds, and cell phones safely charging on your kitchen counter back home. i've realized where to find this now - any large mountain my mom has never heard of. hopefully won't see you in the backcountry. hey andy... glad to see you back! don't give up on denali... there's still plenty of routes up that magnificant mountain where you'll see far less traffic, and probably get a better sense of fufillment as a mountaineer in the process... the ascent up the W. Buttress is so popular because it really doesn't involve much technical climbing, which is why it is more considered a "hike" by locals... the major danger to climbers on that route is weather, which is extremely unpredictable in the Alaska Range, and it is most often where climbers get in trouble by getting overconfident by the "ease" of the climb and underestimating the weather... you're right, the W. Buttress is becomming a circus... but look at the other fabulous mountains in the area... Foraker and Hunter are right next to Denali, and both see a mere 50 climbers on the mountain during the climbing season! To the south in the Wrangell-St. Elias Range there's Mt. St. Elias, Mt. Blackburn, Mt. Drum and, just across the boarder in Canada, Mt. Logan (19,550 ft!)... I think Wrangell-St. Elias National Park is probably the best-kept secret in American mountaineering... it is unfortunate, but the spectal of Denali has grown to frenzy level, but there's really nothing to be done, aside from granting limited access to the mountain... but after you bag it don't forget about the other, lesser-known giants in Alaska just waiting to be explored! climb on!
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
May 5, 2003, 5:25 PM
Post #29 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
i'm definitely planning on climbing in the alaska range, and definitely not the west butt when i do. i had an epiphany about this stuff while i was walking through a sea of feces, toilet paper, and garbage on aconcagua's approach to the polish glacier - tupungato is only a few miles away from there, not much lower, far more attractive, and no on is on it. i would love to do the cassin ridge someday, but we'll see if i ever get that fit again. i would still be totally bummed to see gumbies staggering from picket to picket on my way down though. i just blame guiding for most of this circus. on aconcagua anyway, the guided parties were *huge*, not practicing any sort of minimum impact camping, and total gumbies. we had to show people how to guy their tents properly since their "guides" were overwhelmed by their flocks of helpless gumbies. i won't name names, but this was a major and respected guiding company. if you can't guy a tent properly, you shouldn't camp anywhere but a KOA. we saw lots of guides selling the polish glacier climb, but realizing their clients would all want to bail onto the false polish when they learned how out of condition the glaciers are compared to the guidebook descriptions - dishonest! we saw guided people who spent hours each day talking to their friends at home on their satellite phone - stay home!
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
May 5, 2003, 5:36 PM
Post #30 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
In reply to Redpiton's earlier drivel: east, some of the best mountains? BWHAHAHAHAHAHA-HA-HA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good man, stay there, get these freakin anchors off of our real mountain and lets put them on your hills. Shame on me for not wanting a thousand freakin tourists driving up and down my climbing and hiking spots, littering my state, taking my campgrounds, clogging up the highway, dying on our mountain and driving up the permit prices every year or so? If every non-alaska just picked up their sheit and left the state, it would be so much nicer here. I think you should have to be an AK resident to touch McKinley, and pay out the ass for a permit if you aren't. As for the anchors, the only thing putting a buttload of anchors up there is gonna do is remove people's need to learn how to climb well before they attempt Denali. It means more people with less experience will say "oh honey, its cool, they have anchors every hundred feet" and then die due to the weather because they dont have the experience neccessary to deal with inclement conditions. I think its one of the crappiest ideas I've ever hear of. Hey I know, lets just bolt the snot out of every rock we see, that way people CAN'T fall even if they are dumbasses who dont deserve to climb. Stay the flock out of my state
|
|
|
|
|
cynic
May 6, 2003, 5:38 AM
Post #31 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 35
|
Ok, I told myself that I was going to leave this topic alone after my last post, but I was just reading Mark Twight's book 'Kiss or Kill' and he's got a great quote in the chapter titled 'Justification for an Elitist Attitude' that I just had to share... "Denali by any route is a substantial undertaking and minus-40-degree temperatures level the field. Our toes were just as cold as the next guy's. But I couldn't truthfully say we "climbed" the mountain because there's no climbing on the West Buttress. Unless you call dragging a sled 11 miles, jugging fixed ropes up 500 feet of 35-degree ice, and hiking along a wide ridge-top "climbing." Folks call it whatever their egos need to hear."
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
May 13, 2003, 12:16 AM
Post #32 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
In reply to: So far it hasn't been pointed out that these things might very well have been put there at the urging of the guiding companies. Could it be that the Parks people and the guiding companies just want to make it safer for their masses of High Altitude Tourists Who Really Aren't Climbers? Step right up, now serving number 11,001! Wallrat, do you actually know what you're talking about from firsthand experience?? Or even from readin ANAM?? The guiding companies on Denali have a far better safety record, AND a higher success rate, than the average party heading up Denali. The guides are more often than not the ones assisting in rescue of private parties who get into trouble on the mountain.
In reply to: The real damage is the filth that an increase in traffic inevitably brings. ! Methinks the snow anchors just below Denali Pass will not affect an increase in traffic one iota.
In reply to: West Buttress is becoming a circus And it wasn't before?? What do you call 200+ tents in Genet Basin if not a circus? And that was 10-15 years ago!
In reply to: a couple of bolts is worth it: and
In reply to: using bolts can be just as rewarding as not Uhh, guys, these are not bolts. They are snow anchors. No permanent anchors are being installed on this slope.
In reply to: If you can't negotiate 25 degree snow, you don't belong in alaska...climbing or not! [snip] However, I can't blame the rangers for trying to make their jobs easier. Maybe this will mean few rescues, or maybe it will mean complete gumbies will now be able to make it to the Football Field rather than turning around at 17K. Time will tell.... I'd say the slope below Denali Pass is closer to 30 degrees, and in places solid, slick water ice, NOT snow. One of the most dangerous stretches of the route. Certainly sees its share of accidents and deaths, generally by exhausted climbers on the descent. The issue is not reaching the Football Field, or even the summit. It's getting back to 17, and even getting back home, in one piece. All: If you want to experience the mountain on its own terms, don't go up West Buttress. Don't take an NPS radio for weather forecasts. Don't use the fixed latrines with insulated seats at Kahiltna Base, Genet Basin, etc. Don't follow the trough created by the 14 parties ahead of you. Don't use the fixed ropes on the headwall. Don't use the pre-existing wind walls, snow caves, platforms left by previous parties. Don't send out postcards with other parties headed down-mountain while you are headed up, borrow white gas if you need it from folks headed out, don't trade beta while acclimating at Kahiltna Pass in bad weather, don't follow wands, don't use Geeting or K2 to get you to just outside the Park boundary. But if you do any of these things, don't feel like you're any better than anyone else on the mountain just because you pass up a few fixed snow pickets and flukes and screws on the way down from Denali Pass. Or go ahead and feel superior. Whatever. Some of us don't climb for the same reasons as you supermen (and women). Brutus of Wyde Old Climbers' Home Oakland, California
|
|
|
|
|
jhump
May 13, 2003, 1:47 AM
Post #33 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 7, 2002
Posts: 602
|
Brutus, Whether one clips the fixed gear or not does not make one superior or inferior. That is not the point. Once the fixed gear is "installed" everyone is in an equally committing situation. This is a situation that is not as committing as if the anchors were not there. Also, I differentiate between some of the amenities you mention that climbers use to ease Denali's bite. Some are not as damaging to the Denali experience as others. The first category is one of convenience- the pre dug caves, packed trails, insulated crapper, etc. Although use of such things dilute the Alaskan experience- one must still actually climb the mountain, and these amenities won't climb it for you. The second category contains adjuncts to skills and strength in climbing itself- mainly fixed lines and fixed anchors. Whereas, the first category allows one to camp their way up the mountain without much suffering, this category allows one to bypass years of mountaineering self-developement and just yank on something that someone else installed for upward movement. In the case of the fixed anchors, that someone is the government. The sad part is, even if I don't want to physically use these types of Denali amenities, I am using them simply by being near them. I cannot escape their theft of my commitment. If things go wrong and I need to lower my partner or myself, the anchors are there. I need not worry about self sufficiency in this regard. Nor do I have to lug those four pounds of pickets and screws just in case. I enjoy worrying about my safety while I climb. It is all part of practicing my craft with discipline. To me, discipline comes long before fun. You're right, we do climb for different reasons. Your solution is that I don't climb the WBUTT if I "don't want to experience the mountain on its own terms." That is unfair because it is a fantastic route. According to Washburn, it is the best route. It is also a can't miss descent from harder classics. All I ask is that such a technically easy and classic route (again- many who summit have never even been on a mountain) not have its last bits of commitment value removed. Superman? Yeah right. I am nothing. I just enjoy working hard for what I achieve and I am thrilled to rise to the challenge that our beautiful (and deadly) mountains present us. Jeremy
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
May 13, 2003, 5:25 PM
Post #34 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
In reply to: I differentiate between some of the amenities you mention that climbers use to ease Denali's bite. Some are not as damaging to the Denali experience as others. I completely disagree. What would be damaging to the "Denali experience" at least to me, is the presence of upwards of 600 climbers on the route during peak season. Everything else I mentioned, from the ranger-installed pickets to the cr@ppers to the Daily Llama rescue flights to the yellow-and-brown-stained-stained snow to the packed trails to the pre-existing camps and igloos, is an effect, a consequence, of the traffic load.
In reply to: The first category is one of convenience- the pre dug caves, packed trails, insulated crapper, etc. Although use of such things dilute the Alaskan experience- one must still actually climb the mountain, and these amenities won't climb it for you. Agree. Nor will a few pickets below Denali Pass climb the mountain for you, , nor a fixed rope on the headwall above Genet Basin.
In reply to: The second category contains adjuncts to skills and strength in climbing itself- mainly fixed lines and fixed anchors. Whereas, the first category allows one to camp their way up the mountain without much suffering, this category allows one to bypass years of mountaineering self-developement and just yank on something that someone else installed for upward movement. In the case of the fixed anchors, that someone is the government. I don't think so. We're not talking about installing a ladder of 3/8" bolts up an A5 pitch here. As many responders to this thread have emphasized, the West Buttress of Denali is a slog. The crux of the West Buttress is not the headwall, nor the icy section below Denali Pass, nor any part or parcel of the route from Kahiltna Base to summit cornice. The crux of the West Buttress, the essence of the West Buttress as it is experienced at this point during a typical ascent, is the altitude, the incredibly violent storms, the cold so deep that unprotected flesh freezes to metal eating utensils, the prodigious snowfall, and the crowds. Pickets alter that not at all.
In reply to: The sad part is, even if I don't want to physically use these types of Denali amenities, I am using them simply by being near them. My point exactly.
In reply to: I cannot escape their theft of my commitment. Yes, you can.
In reply to: If things go wrong and I need to lower my partner or myself, the anchors are there. I need not worry about self sufficiency in this regard. Nor do I have to lug those four pounds of pickets and screws just in case. I enjoy worrying about my safety while I climb. It is all part of practicing my craft with discipline. Foraker. Hunter. Kitchatna Spires. Devil's Thumb. Waddington. Saint Elias. It sounds to me like you want Denali's West Buttress to be something other than what it is, but don't want to give up the status of the tick of the highest summit in North America in the process. The Nose of El Cap was a spaced-out adventure once. Now it is a racetrack. If the King Swing is fixed, you either yard across or do it yourself. If you're looking for a spaced out adventure, not a conga line, you go somewhere else. Adventure is where we find it.
In reply to: To me, discipline comes long before fun. You're right, we do climb for different reasons. Your solution is that I don't climb the WBUTT if I "don't want to experience the mountain on its own terms." Clarification: I believe that my solution, as stated, is that you don't climb the WBUTT if you "want to experience the mountain on its own terms."
In reply to: That is unfair because it is a fantastic route. According to Washburn, it is the best route. Life ain't fair and wishing ain't gonna make the crowds go away. Pickets below Denali Pass ain't gonna increase the crowds, they are not going to affect the temperature, or the wind, or the altitude, and their absence isn't going to make the route any less popular. If you climb the Hornli Ridge on the Matterhorn, don't complain about the fixed ropes and the guides above knocking down rubble. Never say "Whoa!" at a horserace. The West Buttress is crowded because of the very reasons you mention. The alternative is to limit access, and/or to charge exhorbitant fees for access so that only the wealthy can pursue this dream. Either one of these alternatives is abhorrent to me. Pickets are the very least of our worries.
In reply to: It is also a can't miss descent from harder classics. All I ask is that such a technically easy and classic route (again- many who summit have never even been on a mountain) not have its last bits of commitment value removed. Anyone who summits Denali, whether she has never tied into a rope before, or whether she has spent 30 years of climbing working up to the experience, has done something she can be proud of, imho. Slog or Alaska Grade VI, pickets and kicked steps or a new cutting edge FA. A few pickets below Denali Pass is not the issue.
In reply to: I just enjoy working hard for what I achieve and I am thrilled to rise to the challenge that our beautiful (and deadly) mountains present us. Me, sometimes I like having the mountains, and even the climbing gym, to myself. When I find myself on a crowded route, I realize that it is my choices that would put me there. Whether the impact of that crowding is pickets below Denali Pass or fixed lines from Heart Ledge to Yosemite Valley floor or fixed tat across the Hinterstossier Traverse, the commitment and challenge of what I am doing would still there. If I wanted to up the ante, to challenge myself beyond what the crowded routes, with all of their conveniences/aids have to offer, I would go somewhere else. You might consider doing the same. Brutus
|
|
|
|
|
brianinslc
May 13, 2003, 6:49 PM
Post #35 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1500
|
Brewtus said: "Agree. Nor will a few pickets below Denali Pass climb the mountain for you, , nor a fixed rope on the headwall above Genet Basin." Tough issue. I'd oppose the ranger presence on the mountain all together. Take away the medical camp, the fixed lines at 14K and at Washburn's Thumb. The pit toilets at BC, 14K and the porta potty at 17. The airstrip/base camp at BC. Get rid of all guiding. But... Then I backslide. I liked flying in (5 times now to the AK range). I don't prefer to take time to walk in. OK, I hates the skeeters and the river crossings, plus, the ol' back just ain't what it used to be, and haulin' heavy loads without a sled is tough work. Ahhh...and...sittin' on an insulated seat, with a view over to Foraker...whilst dumpin' a load, a load I don't have to carry out, bury, worry about the ravens getting into and dropping all over my tent. I like the nightly weather forecast too. And meeting and chatting with a crowd of sloggers from all walks of life. Even the guides are pleasant to chat with, and its interesting to see them in their element. Tough job. No thanks! We bailed off the fixed lines and climbed the "headwall". With a heavy pack, and breathing hard at that altitude, was still plenty "doable". But, real reason was that it was a cluster. Very nice on the descent, though. With the amount of traffic, having an up and down line is nice. Makes a bottle neck quicker and safer. Havin' helped rescue a very disoriented and hammered feller who fell down the icey slope just this side of Denali Pass and toward the 17K camp, and watching no less than about 10 other folks tumble there (a spectacular party of three in one group, complete with summersaults and no injuries!), I've always wondered how long before the rangers at least put up a cargo net to catch the bodies. Ditto the upper rib. You could argue that inexperienced folk have no business up there. But, then read the ANAM. See how many experienced folk get the chop too. Still plenty a dangerous place. You want a wilderness climbing adventure? Gee, don't sign up for the Butt strut. West Buttress is a great and classic route. With the new waste cans, a cleaner place. The park service has to be struggling with these issues. The amount of manpower, and risk, that numerous rescues require, the bulk of which seem to be in the Denali Pass descent, means they have to consider some alternatives. Denali, especially the West Buttress, is fun. Super fun. And...that's ok. I like the Mark Twight quote, then comparing that to his ascent of the Slovak Route (aka the poor name choice of the "Czech Direct"). Would they have done it without the safety net? Didn't they jettison their gear near the top (rope, fuel bottles, stove)? Didn't they rehydrate at the Ranger Camp? Didn't they take advantage of all the services? Not exactly the "adventure" climb it was maybe "sold" as. I'd argue the fellers that climbed the route a couple weeks before them, did it in better style and in about the same climbing time on the route. With WAY more safety margin for bad weather. They didn't need to stop by the ranger hut for some assistance. Anyhoo, interesting to ponder style and all. For most of us, the West Butt is a worthy gig. Great words, Brutus! Brian in SLC
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
May 13, 2003, 7:01 PM
Post #36 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
Some people don't get it and never will. Fixed anchors increase usage. Fixed anchors allow people that have no right (abilities) to take away and infringe upon those willing to do the work (commitment). I suspect the people that argue in favor of this type of sh&t are the same f*cking moros that need to bring their dogs despite all the people that tell them not too. F*cking Pikers. Climbing without consequences is not climbing. Purposefully eliminating the danger and risk in a climb for those that follow is an abomination and should not be tolerated. Real climbers don't tolerate it. The rest of you rationalizing, liberal minded, risk aversive schmoos just need to spend more time at the beach getting greased with lotion and leave the mountains and the crags to those that wish to experience them while LEAVING NO TRACE, which is supposed to be what it's all about. To all you anchor lovers.....go find a hiking trail and put up some more cairns to make yourselves feel better....
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
May 13, 2003, 7:39 PM
Post #37 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
In reply to: Some people don't get it and never will. You're right.
In reply to: Fixed anchors increase usage. If you think that the presence of a few pickets below Denali Pass will affect visitation on the West Buttress by as many as one individual, you need to have your medication adjusted. "Gee, I have been wanting to climb Denali, but that one slippery stretch below Denali Pass has kept me away for years."
In reply to: I suspect the people that argue in favor of this type of sh&t are the same f*cking moros that need to bring their dogs despite all the people that tell them not too. [Sarchasm] You're absolutely right. And not only that, but my dog was the one that chewed up your tennis shoes that you left at the base of the route.
In reply to: F*cking Pikers. That's me. F*cking Piker all the way.
In reply to: Climbing without consequences is not climbing. Purposefully eliminating the danger and risk in a climb for those that follow is an abomination and should not be tolerated. Thank you for defining climbing so clearly for the rest of us. I've been wondering for the past 30+ years what climbing really is. Lucky for me that you condescended to clear that up for me!
In reply to: Real climbers don't tolerate it. The rest of you rationalizing, liberal minded, risk aversive schmoos just need to spend more time at the beach getting greased with lotion and leave the mountains and the crags to those that wish to experience them while LEAVING NO TRACE, which is supposed to be what it's all about. LOL.
In reply to: To all you anchor lovers.....go find a hiking trail and put up some more cairns to make yourselves feel better.... If "Real Climbers" [TM] are all as judgemental, elitist, intolerant and deluded as you, I'm glad I've never been, and never will be, a "Real Climber". You really, really should look into having that medication adjusted. :wink: Thanks for the entertainment. Brutus of Wyde Sofa King, Wheat-hearted Old Climbers' Home Oakland, California
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
May 13, 2003, 8:04 PM
Post #38 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
Hey Brutus, thanks for taking your mouth and hands off your dog's testicles long enough to reply.... :D Now, go yard up some draws and tell us how you sent that sh*t!
|
|
|
|
|
brianinslc
May 13, 2003, 8:25 PM
Post #39 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1500
|
In reply to: Some people don't get it and never will. Look in the mirror, eh?
In reply to: Fixed anchors increase usage. Maybe in sports parks. But, not really on Denali. And, not in this case. Crowds are already there.
In reply to: Fixed anchors allow people that have no right (abilities) to take away and infringe upon those willing to do the work (commitment). I'm not seeing how this applies here. I guess those rightless folk take up campsite space, but, seems to be plenty up there. Maybe they breathin' the precious little oxygen up there. That must be it.
In reply to: I suspect the people that argue in favor of this type of sh&t are the same f*cking moros that need to bring their dogs despite all the people that tell them not too. And cell phones. You forgot cell phones. Although I recall Denali being climbed by a sled dog team a few years back...
In reply to: Climbing without consequences is not climbing. Purposefully eliminating the danger and risk in a climb for those that follow is an abomination and should not be tolerated. Not true, its called "sport climbing". Har har. And, in case you're lost, this is a thread about climbing Denali, in Alaska. You know, that great big snowy peak up thar. Just doesn't seem to be the same as a sports climbing venue.
In reply to: Real climbers don't tolerate it. Well, if you are a "real climber", then, besides your mindless spray on the internet, what are you doing besides tolerating it? Have you spoken to anyone at the NPS about this? What were their thoughts? Or, are you just settin' back, like the rest of us, and tolerating it? I guess I'd suggest falling on a sword or something, fer cryin' out loud...
In reply to: The rest of you rationalizing, liberal minded, risk aversive schmoos just need to spend more time at the beach getting greased with lotion and leave the mountains and the crags to those that wish to experience them while LEAVING NO TRACE, which is supposed to be what it's all about. Thought it was about risk and danger. Now I'm all confused. I don't necessarily agree with the fixed ropes and pickets on Denali, nor the medical camp, easy access to rescue, etc. But, I can darn sure rationalize it. Can't be easy for the park circus to manage 1100 climbers a year up there. I'm sure they'd appreciate some constructive criticism.
In reply to: To all you anchor lovers.....go find a hiking trail and put up some more cairns to make yourselves feel better.... Maybe jump on a thread that makes sense for your rant, eh? Whew, there, I feel better already. And I didn't even need to build any cairns... Brian in SLC
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
May 13, 2003, 8:40 PM
Post #40 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
I don't really like the idea of fixed anchors on a wild mountain. But I don't really see Denali as a wild mountain anymore. One thing we all seem to agree on is that the West Butt route is a zoo and very comercial. Pulling these anchors, or the fixed ropes is not going to change that, it will just make it a bigger clusterfuck. Personally, WHEN I go to AK, I will probably climb the rib. But there are a ton of things that are higher on my list because they are still wild and lonesome. You all can slog all you wish, and clip away. P.S. drkodos, I think you are either too pissed off to realize how rediculous your posts sound, or... no that's it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
May 13, 2003, 10:25 PM
Post #42 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
In reply to: Hey Brutus, thanks for taking your mouth and hands off your dog's testicles long enough to reply.... :D Now, go yard up some draws and tell us how you sent that sh*t! My pleasure. And thanks to YOU for showing us yet another example of your highly logical, well-thought-out, and convincing argument. :lol: Brutus
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
May 17, 2003, 6:40 PM
Post #43 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
hey, dog's testical or not, drkodos has the right view of the situation. it happens to be the fairly unanymous view of alaskan mountaineers that what once was a pristine mountain, with many possibilities still left on it, is now a circus. there are too many people on denali. this does not help. it allows people who have very little in the way of experience talk their wives and girlfriends into letting them go off to the mountain because "there are anchors on all the hard parts, so how could I ever fall?" That becomes the attracting mentality, and the fact that it can be one of the most inclement, nasty places on the planet escapes their ill-prepared, inexperienced little minds. I've lived in Alaska for 22 years, and have seen alot of inexperienced climbers who go up the mountains around here and get killed because of things like cold, altitude, heavy snow, not just falling down because there weren't any anchors. The anchors are like installing a friggin handrail up the mountain. They are an insult to alaskan climbers, to real climbers everywhere, and certainly to real climbers on denali.
|
|
|
|
|
brutusofwyde
May 17, 2003, 7:23 PM
Post #44 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 3, 2002
Posts: 1473
|
In reply to: hey, dog's testical or not, drkodos has the right view of the situation. [snip] ill-prepared, inexperienced little minds. I've lived in Alaska for 22 years, [snip] The anchors are like installing a friggin handrail up the mountain. They are an insult to alaskan climbers, to real climbers everywhere, and certainly to real climbers on denali. I was born in Alaska, although I fail to see the tiniest shred of relevance of where one was born or where one lives to this discussion, unless such things make one a "special breed" or a "real climber" or some such drivel. I don't argue that Denali is a circus. I don't even disagree about what we would both (maybe even "Mr. Testicle"!) apparently would like to see up on that beautiful peak: No aircraft access, No guiding, No Daily Lama helicopter rescue service, No conga lines, no Kahiltna International Airport, No Medical Research Station in Genet Basin, No fixed ropes, No insulated toilet seats, break down your wind walls when you leave, if you run into trouble you either self rescue, or your friends rescue you, or the next party throws your bodies down a crevasse (wait, that would violate Leave-No-Trace, wouldn't it?) Wishing ain't gonna make it so. The pickets are a tiny pimple on a huge, rotting corpse. And to think that they are going to increase visitation on Denali is silly, "right" or not. But consider: Would you have the "real" climbers, the ones who would be insulted, decide who has a right to attempt Denali? Must I submit my "real climber" card before stepping in for my "Denali may kill you" orientation? Or how about a quota system? Or a lottery system? Let's give Denali a $60,000 peak fee! Sure would cut down on the crowding. Any of those options is a far worse evil, in my opinion, than a few pickets below Denali Pass. We ALL have a right to attempt Denali. Real climbers or not. If the NPS can prevent some rescues and deaths of exhausted climbers in an area known for its treacherously benign visage, and have decided that it is appropriate to do so, (And believe me, I am no friend of the NPS) I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. The pickets aren't even a pretty stripe on the side of that circus tent. That word again. Real climbers. Can ya spell elitist? Sure ya can. I'm not insulted. Therefore, obviously by your criteria and that of drkodos, I'm not a "real climber." And more relieved than ever. Also incredibly glad that grubbing bumblies like me have a chance to go up thar. Good discussion! Have a great day! Brutus
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
May 19, 2003, 7:19 PM
Post #45 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
ok, well, the 22 years in alaska has caused me to develop an emotional investment in the wilderness up here, and whenever I see that wilderness covered with crowds of people (especially people from outside who dont care as much about where I live as I do). That is the shred of relevance. This is why anyone gets pissed when someone new comes in and starts to alter things that once were much-less tainted by people. If you can't understand that, then I completely understand why you are in CA. Alaskans hate tourists, end of story. "Real" climbing is dealing with risks, its knowing things, training, practicing, working hard. "Real" climbing is bringing your own freakin pickets up a mountain. "Real" climbing is being responsible for yourself, not relying on other people to get you up and down a mountain. "Real" climbers know who they are. Of course there need be no cards (ha), no lottery, no quotas. There just needs to be less help for the climbers, no outhouses, no fixed ropes, no airport, no medical camp. It should be like most other mountains that "real" climbers climb-just you, the mountain, and whatever your brought with you. Giving people a "handrail" is demeaning, it turns the largest mountain in the most wild state in the best country in the world into a goddamned tourist attraction. I guess it would save a few lives, but my point is that most the buggers who climb the west butt these days couldn't climb a tree, much less a mountain that doesn't practically garuntee you a NPS babysitter most of the way. I disagree with your statement that we "all deserve a shot at mckinley," I think that there are alot of people who dont deserve to, and that based not on who they are, but on how good and reliable a climber they are. However, ain't nothing I say gonna keep all those bloddy friggin tourists from cluttering up and littering all over my state. God I hate them, how could anyone not just loathe tourists, they get in the way, they pull over and honk and take your picture while you climb, take up all the nice camping sites, drive too slowly, act like they know everything, walk all over downtown anchorage and get hit by cars, come up here to hunt our biggest and best creatures for sport-thereby working against the natural process of evolution. Damn, if ever a group of people tempted me to go on a rampage more, I don't know of it. Anyhow, I guess my wanting the fixed routes off Denali stems from my wishing there were just less people here. The fewer the better.
|
|
|
|
|
brianinslc
May 19, 2003, 7:50 PM
Post #46 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1500
|
In reply to: ok, well, the 22 years in alaska has caused me to develop an emotional investment in the wilderness up here. Nimby!
In reply to: However, ain't nothing I say gonna keep all those bloddy friggin tourists from cluttering up and littering all over my state. God I hate them, how could anyone not just loathe tourists, they get in the way, they pull over and honk and take your picture while you climb, take up all the nice camping sites, drive too slowly, act like they know everything, walk all over downtown anchorage and get hit by cars, come up here to hunt our biggest and best creatures for sport-thereby working against the natural process of evolution. Damn, if ever a group of people tempted me to go on a rampage more, I don't know of it. Anyhow, I guess my wanting the fixed routes off Denali stems from my wishing there were just less people here. The fewer the better. I guess all the ill's you mention above also apply to the majority of folks that live in AK too...only at a much higher rate per capita (litter, trophy hunting, gettin' hit by cars in downtown Anchortown, actin' like they know everything). Like there aren't places to live in Alaska devoid of tourists...jeez... What about them "Alaskan" climbers who work for the NPS? And the "local" guides? I guess they probably don't qualify as "real" climbers either... Another point...maybe its not bad to sacrifice one route, on one mountain, to your tourist hordes. I guess I'd sorta hate to think of them 1100 folks a year spread out in more pristine "real" climbing terrain... Tourists need your oil so you can get your check every year. You need those tourists...har har... Get off the road! Plenty of places to go in AK where you don't have to see any one. Gee, get out a map. Move to Chevak er something. You want to only climb name brand stuff, then expect to see some folks. Wake up and smell the Raven's Brew. So many places to go with no people...vast amounts of true wilderness. Except maybe locals with their powerboats, super cubs, ATV's and snowmachines...har har... There's a reason Denali's West Buttress is a popular. Its a great route. But it ain't no wilderness. At least for only 2 or 3 months out of the year. After that...then she's all yours.... Brian in SLC
|
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
May 19, 2003, 8:12 PM
Post #47 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
screw you and your stupid mormon town. We need the tourists to buy oil? Are you high? All our oil goes to the freakin west coast, we sell none of it to tourists. What do you think, everybody's got their own oil rig and gas station or something? Tourists account for so little of our revenue, and are such a pain in the ass its disgusting. No crap you can lose the people, and I have plenty of maps, and I garuntee you I know the alaskan wilderness better than you do, so lose the insulting tone. See, I remember when Anchorage was a nice place to live around because of the convienience of getting groceries at kinda-normal prices, getting decent medical care if neccessary, things that cities can provide, but there were not the thousands of tourists that clog up the state and the nearby attractions every summer. So many places to go, and so few people-yeah if you have your own plane. I'm not that wealthy, I guess I just suck. And the difference between most Alaskans and most other big game hunters is that Alaskans tend to subsist as opposed to just going out to kill some big, strage animal to hang on your wall. I hunt, but I don't give a rat's ass about the fur or head, I want the meat. So do most of us. Most the bastards who come up here from the lower 48 and want to go hunting never ship any meat home, they just leave with a rug and a trophy, taking a bit of my pristine state with them. Here is the real kicker. You dont live up here, so don't try to tell me that my feelings on the issue aren't valid. I know how all the goddamn tourists that migrate up here every may and leave every august affect my life. You don't have the foggiest clue. Shut the hell up.
|
|
|
|
|
brianinslc
May 20, 2003, 12:07 AM
Post #48 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2002
Posts: 1500
|
In reply to: Tourists account for so little of our revenue, and are such a pain in the ass its disgusting. Actually, I think over a billion $ a year? More than seafood, timber and mining? Not exactly a drop in the bucket. Ol' Murky likes them tourist dollars. I'll be glad when you get him back...
In reply to: No crap you can lose the people, and I have plenty of maps, and I garuntee you I know the alaskan wilderness better than you do, so lose the insulting tone. Based on YOUR tone, you've spent far too little time in that AK wilderness that you're so proud of. Who knows, maybe less than me. That, or its all those months without daylight... And, gee, how 'bout that, we have maps here too. So, lose the insulting tone (ha ha).
In reply to: I guess I just suck. I won't argue that...
In reply to: And the difference between most Alaskans and most other big game hunters is that Alaskans tend to subsist as opposed to just going out to kill some big, strage animal to hang on your wall. And you moved to AK why (probably wasn't your choice, but your parents)? See, there's a number of folk who like to trophy hunt, that want to live where them critters live. And, avoid havin' to be related to someone to not have to hire a guide. Also, spending 25 bucks vs 400 buck per tag. So, the majority of AK hunters might subsistance hunt, but a significant minority trophy hunt exclusively, and even a subsistance hunter won't pass up a shot at the big one. At least not a "real" Alaskan wouldn't. And since most out of state hunters don't live there, and only maybe do one dream huntin' trip in their lives, it goes to figure that local Alaskans do most of the trophy hunting. Plus get a ton more days in the field. Every year, year after year... Cullin' all them little fellers you've been subsistance huntin', doesn't give them the chance at growin' up to be a big 'un. Subsist. Yeah right. You guys in Eagle River have better grocery stores that we do here in Salt Lake City. Really scrapin' by up there... Not to mention huntin' guides. Look in the Anchorage phone book. Gee, there's one or two listed...(as in, go complain to them about bringin' tourons up there).
In reply to: Here is the real kicker. You dont live up here, so don't try to tell me that my feelings on the issue aren't valid. You can have all the feelings you want. And here is the real kicker, everyone's feelings are valid, not just your's.
In reply to: I know how all the goddamn tourists that migrate up here every may and leave every august affect my life. You don't have the foggiest clue. Shut the hell up. Actually, I am one of those tourists, so I do have a clue. So, stumble on down to the Oaken Keg, pick up some cheap liquor, and go cry yourself to sleep about all those tourists. Or is that "wine" your having...? Har har. Seriously, though, all them touron's have got to be a bummer. But, the flip side is now you have great places to eat, good coffee, good micro brew, good transportation into the bush, all partly because of tourism. Take bush flights into the AK range (back on topic? No way!). Without tourist "scenics", how much would it cost for climbers to access the range? A ton more. And, I'm jealous you live in Alaska. Man, I'd really like to move there, for maybe a month a year. Wull I'll be, looks like I have some vacation time built up... So, I'm in Eagle River last spring, gettin' groceried up prior to headin' to Talkeetna...gal at the register asks me where I'm from (its obvious I'm a durn tourist). I tell her "Salt Lake". "Oh, yer a long ways from home." "Ya, 'bout 4 and a half hours..." Brian in SLC
|
|
|
|
|
renobdarb
May 20, 2003, 12:34 AM
Post #49 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Posts: 393
|
--message deleated due a comming of senses---
|
|
|
|
|
singlespeed
May 20, 2003, 2:55 AM
Post #50 of 52
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2003
Posts: 13
|
This thread is hilarious, If tourism will keep our gov'ner and the feds from mining, paving, culling, cutting or otherwise extracting every possible iota of natural resources from this state then I am all for it. So we get crowded towns in the summer, big deal. In juneau we get 10,000 people a day for most days of the summer, but I can go one ridge back and there isn't a single tourist to be seen. Helicopters and planes, yeah they are a bother sometimes, it does suck to have your picture taken by a tourist out on the Pika because you are a "climber" but hey if you really want solitude go to the western Kunlun region in China. Alaska is a tourist state we just have to deal with it and wait for winter when we can have it all to ourselves. Winter is more fun anyway. Back to Denali. Fixed anchors up high, I personally am against them, I like the challenge of doing things myself, although I am sure I would use them on a descent from a different route. But I see the W.Butt as the sacrificial lamb, kinda like the road system in Ak as long as we keep the toursists on it, then everything else is for the locals or those in the know. But do these anchors really matter up there now? doesn't make the climb any easier. there is already a ranger station and poo stations, it's not like they put a tram on the damn mountain (at least not yet). If your beef is really with all of the safety nets then go one peak over, Foraker is a better looking peak anyway, or how about Logan or St.Elias, anything in the Wrangells or Fairweather Ranges. They are so much less traveled and don't have "the scene". Just go there, no rangers no peoples, just live without a net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|