|
|
|
|
jhump
Apr 29, 2003, 4:23 PM
Post #1 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 7, 2002
Posts: 602
|
Quoted from the Denali news on the front page...
"Nearly 1,100 people have registered to climb Mount McKinley this year. On average, one or two will die, Robinson said. But one of the most dangerous parts of the climb, the traverse of Denali Pass at 18,200 feet, will be safer this year. Rangers are installing snow anchors every 100 feet or so, which will give climbers a place to attach their ropes."
Dear Mr. Ranger,
I would like to thank you for this courteous gesture. Bolting Denali is way overdue. It was irresponsible for the rangers to allow climbers to be in such danger for all these years. Oxygen starved extreme adventure tourists wandering the mountain without anywhere "to attach their ropes." We are talking about 25 degree snow-ice here, easily into the realm of semi, quasi-technical. It is a shame that so many have been rejected from our continental highpoint because they could only afford a handful of draws. Now, the average mountain man can get up there and clip that shiny gear with their sport rack, not just the elites who have been the only ones crazy and audacious enough in the past. Before this season a measely several thousand have been to the summit. Now the rest of us can join in the fun.
My most wholehearted, sincere, and genuine thanks,
Jeremy
|
|
|
|
|
bigdrop
Apr 29, 2003, 4:32 PM
Post #2 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 20, 2002
Posts: 112
|
WHAT A SHAME
~JC
|
|
|
|
|
sunsation
Apr 29, 2003, 4:36 PM
Post #3 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2002
Posts: 184
|
Oh man, talk about pathetic :shock:
|
|
|
|
|
polarwid
Apr 29, 2003, 4:38 PM
Post #4 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2001
Posts: 3608
|
:lol: I climbed the WET BUTT back in '85, and it was still somewhat of an adventure, but waitng in line to climb the HEADWALL was still interesting, never thought I would queue for a route at 15,000 feet on a "remote" peak. Now, I wouldn't be surprised to see PORTA-JOHN on DENALI PASS, and maybe a SUMMIT WARMING HUT, with STARBUCKS and all... :wink:
Don't let the ease of the "trek" fool you though, they are only making it faster, so more AMS incidents WILL happen.
Or, you could climb one of the MANY more asthetic routes like the WEST RIB, or CASSIN. Or hell, if you want a walk up with some REAL ADVENTURE, follow the MULDROW like the FA'ers did way back when, with alpenstocks and knickers... :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
wallrat
Apr 29, 2003, 4:38 PM
Post #5 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 28, 2002
Posts: 155
|
Now this just requires a different way of thinking...these aren't "fixed anchors", they're BOOTIE!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
renobdarb
Apr 29, 2003, 4:42 PM
Post #6 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Posts: 393
|
In addition to safety, I think the rangers were hoping to prevent a bottleneck at this area by pre-placing the snow anchors... since this route sees so much traffic is such a short time, things can get a little crowded, and by putting in these anchors i think they'll make passage of this section more efficient as well as safer... come on, guys... it's not like they built a gondola to haul people to the summit, and climbers expecting the ascent to be easier because of a few anchors will be sorely mistaken...
-bb
and BTW, polarwid, i think there are some porta-crappers up there, even up above base camp, at least that's what some dude in Talkeetna told me! :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
redpiton
Apr 29, 2003, 5:39 PM
Post #7 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2003
Posts: 238
|
I disagree with almost everyone else in this post. Granted the West Buttress may be a plodding path and herds of climber cattle do climb it ever year, but shame on all of you.
People die on climbing routes, be them on Mt. Washington or on Denali.
People climb because they want to, and now that it is safer, granted more people will attempt it. It is a shame that it may be more developed and what not, but I guarantee that all of you ladies would be clipping into the same anchors as your skirts blow in your faces.
I don't mean to be hostile, and yes you should be a fully capeable mountaineer to attempt an undertaking such as Denali, but realiatically our sport is increasing its numbers.
Fatalities happen. I hope to not be involved in your rescue.
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Apr 29, 2003, 6:15 PM
Post #8 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
In reply to: I guarantee that all of you ladies would be clipping into the same anchors as your skirts blow in your faces
them's big words from a guy who doesn't live near any mountains. I've actually been up there, and I didn't use the fixed anchors on the headwall, and I sure as shit wouldn't use those anchors either...some of us like it difficult, and we know that adding anchors doesn't make it safer. If you can't negotiate 25 degree snow, you don't belong in alaska...climbing or not!
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....
|
|
|
|
|
jhump
Apr 29, 2003, 6:44 PM
Post #9 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 7, 2002
Posts: 602
|
Sorry guys, but on this issue I have trouble recognizing an alternate opinion to mine as legitimate. All attempts to justify these anchors are, in my mind, laughable. Yes, people die while climbing. This is no excuse to remove the commitment and danger from Denali. Measures such as these are often appropriate where the unwary may be hurt (ie. top rope and sport crags, state parks, etc.). Surely you don't think those who have traveled 11,000 vertical feet to Denali Pass are unwary. They know the mountain is steep and icey. What is wrong wih carrying a few pickets and screws and having the skills to place them- basic fundamentals? You may argue, if you don't like the pro, don't clip it." This argument fails here just like it does when people want to bolt cracks to make them more accessible. The fact that they are there removes commitment from the climb, whether used or not. This is low angle terrain where the most basic mountaineering skills (closely akin to hiking) allow thousands to reach the top. Many of these people have never even been on a mountain before, and they do just fine.
Why does this irritate me so badly? I want consequences when I climb, and there are many who want the same. This is not elitist. Just don't make the mountain easier to ascend. Rise to the occasion. Many think of an ascent of Denali as a personal slam dunk. But using such tactics, it is really a dunk off of a trampoline. Sad to take the ultimate achievement and make it common place. Some Tyrolean guy called this the murder of something or other.
Are the anchors harmless? They taint an ascent just as the fixed lines on the headwall do. Big deal. The real damage is the filth that an increase in traffic inevitably brings. There is already a critical situation concerning the trash and feces. The answer is not more accessibility (though the paint can is a good idea).
|
|
|
|
|
redpiton
Apr 29, 2003, 6:54 PM
Post #10 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2003
Posts: 238
|
Not close to any mountains? Vermont? New Hampshire? Come east sometime and I'll show you some of the best. However, I do agree that the west is much bigger and better in many scales.
Geographically speaking, my friend, this is no battle. There are airplaines now a days and people do travel. Don't pick on me for where I live. You will loose that battle. :roll:
I also have been out there my friend. You are so big and tuff for not using the anchors. Go ahead and don't use them. You are still climbing on the same route as the rest of us.
I'm sorry we all aren't as brave as you, is this what you wanted to hear?
|
|
|
|
|
redpiton
Apr 29, 2003, 6:58 PM
Post #11 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2003
Posts: 238
|
In reply to: and we know that adding anchors doesn't make it safer
-rockprodigy
This is pretty lame. One single anchor and the Mt. Hood accident could have been prevented. Need I say more?
Be careful my friend.
|
|
|
|
|
jhump
Apr 29, 2003, 7:11 PM
Post #12 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 7, 2002
Posts: 602
|
True, one single anchor that the climbers could have easily placed themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Apr 29, 2003, 7:14 PM
Post #13 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
In reply to: Be careful my friend
Don't start out by calling me a "lady", and then purport to be my friend.
In reply to: Vermont? New Hampshire?
Mountains not hills.
In reply to: Don't pick on me for where I live
Where you live says a lot about your commitment to being a climber. We are engaged in an ethical debate about commitment level in mountaineering. Your geographical location indicates that you are not committed.
In reply to: You are still climbing on the same route as the rest of us.
I never said anything about climbing that route. I descended it after climbing a much more challenging and committing (there's that word again) route.
In reply to: One single anchor and the Mt. Hood accident could have been prevented
Yes, an accident involving 15+ people with no business there that were lured to the mountain by easy access. The fixed anchors that you want only serve to get people farther into danger than they otherwise would have gotten. This is not the job of the NPS...guides, maybe, but not the NPS.
|
|
|
|
|
floydboy
Apr 29, 2003, 7:36 PM
Post #14 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 29, 2003
Posts: 5
|
I'm sure we all see this phenomenon at our local gyms, walls, crags - there are the climbers, who show up to climb their brains out because that's what they do; and there are the people who just came fresh from REI with a shiny new sport rack and the tags still on their harnesses. They come to climb because it's trendy, or because they're on a DATE, for Krists sake (seen that one a few times). It saddens me to see that this has spread to places like Denali, where truly elite climbers have a place of their own, is going to be brought to the level of the everyday tourist. Remember, though, these tourists are just that - TOURISTS. They are NOT climbers. Those who climb those peaks do so after long periods of intense training and extensive safety/climbing technique training. Unfortunately, if we as climbers want to keep the mountains as our own refuge for doing what we love, it may take losing the lives of a few yahoos who DON'T go thru the necessary training to wake people up to the fact that climbing a mountain is not a sightseeing trip....
|
|
|
|
|
njbourne
Apr 29, 2003, 7:38 PM
Post #15 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2003
Posts: 113
|
Amen, If you cannot protect yourself while on a climb you do not belong on the climb.
|
|
|
|
|
wallrat
Apr 29, 2003, 7:40 PM
Post #16 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 28, 2002
Posts: 155
|
Seems to me this is the alpine equivalent to bolting a crack. It's been done thousands of times safely, yet now we don't have to do that nasty, dangerous section of the route while placing all our own protection. OH JOY! Clip&Go has come to Denali! I wonder if they'll fix the Japanese Couloir before I get there next spring? Then I could sell my screws and use the money for something else.
Promoting safety? BOSH! This only encourages some alpine ding-dong to get him or herself killed (don't sweat it, the crux is fixed). The message is this: You don't need to be quite as well prepared...we're building a safety chain for you. Anything that takes away your moral burden to be SELF SUFFICIENT is a step toward the Government denying your right to do so, through an inferred waiving of self responsibility.
Admittedly, it's a small thing. But what is the next "small thing"? Fixing the headwall? Windy Corner? Both?
First there was only Denali; then a Base Camp, then a Medical Camp, then porta potties at the high camps, then a fixed pitch...see where it's going? What a drag, I'd say NO THANKS!
|
|
|
|
|
renobdarb
Apr 29, 2003, 10:36 PM
Post #17 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Posts: 393
|
I've only taken guesses as to why the rangers put the anchors where they did... i haven't been up there myself and won't pose to pretend like i know what i'm talking about... what i do know is this: the rangers on Denali aren't idiot poo-baas who put the anchors there for sh**s and giggles... they are experienced mountaineers themselves, and they have their reasons for their actions... calling the anchors idiotic is calling the people who put them there idiots, and i wouldn't do that because if some freak accident happened and you got in trouble, those idiots are the ones to come save your sorry ass... my advice about these anchors is the same advice i'd give to someone bitching about poorly-placed bolts on a climb: if you don't agree with the placement or think they're unnecessary, don't use them... no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to clip in...
|
|
|
|
|
cynic
Apr 30, 2003, 12:26 AM
Post #18 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 35
|
In reply to: if you don't agree with the placement or think they're unnecessary, don't use them... no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to clip in...
This is rationalization at its worst. One of the major reasons for mountineering is the risk and committment involved. If those anchors are there then that committment is reduced regardless of whether you use them. As long as you have the option of just clipping to an anchor when the going gets tough then they have done their damage to the climbing experience.
|
|
|
|
|
renobdarb
Apr 30, 2003, 1:49 AM
Post #19 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Posts: 393
|
In reply to: This is rationalization at its worst. One of the major reasons for mountineering is the risk and committment involved. If those anchors are there then that committment is reduced regardless of whether you use them. As long as you have the option of just clipping to an anchor when the going gets tough then they have done their damage to the climbing experience.
Fine... I guess we'll never hear the account of your ascent up the West Buttress... the experience is obviously already ruined for you...
"Rationalization at it's worst"? i don't think so... i guess that's why your screen name's "cynic"... you choose to look at this like it's a horrible thing... i also don't think someone whose mountaineering resume consists of a couple of magazine subscriptions should question the acts of park rangers who are also experienced mountaineers...
|
|
|
|
|
cynic
Apr 30, 2003, 4:12 AM
Post #20 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 35
|
In reply to: i also don't think someone whose mountaineering resume consists of a couple of magazine subscriptions should question the acts of park rangers who are also experienced mountaineers...
You're right, I still don't have any real mountaineering experience, in fact, I barely have any experience. For only being in the technical side of things for one year I have lots of technical knowledge but no real resume to speak of. Fortunately this is a debate over ethics and not a 'who's done what' thread. But go ahead and attack me all you like, my skin aint exactly thin. My point is simply that mountaineering, historically, has not been the realm of those who have not earned their stripes and it shouldn't be. When I finally pay my dues and get to stand on my first major peak I will know that I have worked for it and have made it on my and my partner's strength and skills and not because I had the route safety-checked for me.
In reply to: I guess we'll never hear the account of your ascent up the West Buttress
Also correct, I love the mountains for their solitude, to ascend a route with as many people as go up the West Buttress is not a goal of mine. When I finally make it out to Denali it will be to attempt a technical route that I have worked for. I'm not going to call any ascent at that altitude easy, but I'm still going to shoot for more.
|
|
|
|
|
mr_phelps
Apr 30, 2003, 4:45 AM
Post #21 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 112
|
When did mountaineering become this sport only for the dangerous and stupid? I used to live in Alaska, so please don't give me some crap about my geographical location. It's cold as shit there, no doubt, and the mountains are tall, duh, do you really need to live there to know these mind boggling facts? :?
I am not quite sure what the problem is. If you don't like the anchors, then don't use them. However, if for some reason you're dying of hypothermia and you do use them, you have to cut off your nuts and send them to the stupid man club, of which you will no longer be a member.
My point here, get over it, not all of us are pro-mountaineers, but I guarantee that for some of us, using bolts can be just as rewarding as not. So get off your high horse, chill out, have fun, climb the mountain and if you see me on these bolts, wish me luck, I'll probably need it.
|
|
|
|
|
cynic
Apr 30, 2003, 6:25 AM
Post #22 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 35
|
Ok, I've been mulling this one over some more and here are my(hopefully) final comments;
1. Before anyone else says so, you're right, I probably have no place giving my opinion on this topic given my current location and experience level.
2. I am not attacking the rangers who placed the anchors, I understand why they did and if I were in their shoes I would probably have made the same decision. A couple of bolts is worth it to keep from having to do a body recovery.
3. As for my name, I chose it because my first 10 choices were already taken. That aside, the unfortunate reality of life is that most things tend to be more towards the negative than the positive, as much as I try to believe otherwise life continually proves me wrong so, yeah, I guess cynic fits as well as anything.
4. The whole reason I felt so compelled to respond to this thread is quite simple; everywhere I look all I see is the bar being continually lowered so that instead of working for an achievement the standards are just adjusted so that it can be granted without much effort at all. Mountaineering is my escape from that, it's something that you need to truly work at and it's a full commitment, mind and body, to a single goal. To see that bar be lowered, just like everything else, is just frustrating.
5. I am in no way implying that this is a sport for the "dangerous and stupid", quite to the contrary, I'm saying that people should be required to work and train long and hard enough to be able to make the ascent of whatever peak they're shooting for as safely and smartly as is possible.
I don't hold it against an inexperienced person for wanting to make the ascent up Denali. I know I've wanted to just be at its base since I first got to see it a little over 3 years ago. I just want people to take responsibility for their own goals and the consequences that go along with not being properly prepared for those goals.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Apr 30, 2003, 7:21 AM
Post #23 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
when you think you have seen all there is to see about human stupidity som moron finds a new way to suprise you.
|
|
|
|
|
renobdarb
Apr 30, 2003, 1:20 PM
Post #24 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Posts: 393
|
In reply to: I am not quite sure what the problem is. If you don't like the anchors, then don't use them. My point here, get over it, not all of us are pro-mountaineers, but I guarantee that for some of us, using bolts can be just as rewarding as not. So get off your high horse, chill out, have fun, climb the mountain...
giddy-up... it's about time someone else had a level head about this... if you don't like 'em, don't use 'em, or don't take the West Buttress route... geez, its not like they built a gondola to the summit...
In reply to: My point is simply that mountaineering, historically, has not been the realm of those who have not earned their stripes and it shouldn't be.
absolutely. and i don't think a few pre-placed anchors will cause a flood of day-hikers on the mountain. anyone stupid enough to assume these anchors will make the ascent any easier really has it coming.
In reply to: I am not attacking the rangers who placed the anchors, I understand why they did and if I were in their shoes I would probably have made the same decision. A couple of bolts is worth it to keep from having to do a body recovery.
For the record, i don't necessarily support these anchors, either... i'm just saying the rangers, who know this mountain and are on it every year, must have seen some need for them (perhaps for their own use, to facilitate speed in a rescue?)... in fact, they probably knew it would start a controversy... i haven't the slightest clue what their reasons might be, but i do know they're not stupid... i'll also say this: i don't see these anchors getting a lot of use, mainly because of the reasons others have expressed; that people feel they don't belong there in the first place... I also think experienced mountaineers feel more comfortable placing their own anchors or having a trusted partner do it than use existing anchors some stranger (however experienced) put there...
|
|
|
|
|
wallrat
May 1, 2003, 2:24 PM
Post #25 of 52
(4325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 28, 2002
Posts: 155
|
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!
Something else I noticed here..whenever the supporters of this fixed pro are called on it, they tend to come back with the "Well, when you need rescued you'll be glad they're there" bit. What you guys don't seem to understand is that we don't WANT to be protected. We don't expect to have a helicopter standing by to whisk us off to the doctor. Of course, in a dire emergency this becomes a silly, irrelevant argument, but we do go out there to test the limits of our self sufficiency. I go to Alaska (next year will be my 8th trip) for the High and Wild. Part of the wildness is keeping a separation as far as possible from myself and civilization. How can you learn the limits of your capabilities, and define yourself if there is protection close at hand. These fixed pickets represent (to me) a hand holding, coddling effort to "lower the hurdle" as Cynic said. It's very "parental". Please, Denali Park Rangers don't watch over me...I can do it myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
