sugar-loaf descent

It has been 20 years since I have climbed sugar-loaf and I was wondering about the descent. As I remember, in the old days you descended towards the east with 2 repels on 2 50 meter ropes or 3 repels on 1 50 meter rope and then walked south and west around sugar-loaf back to the base. However those bolts were manky 1/4 leapers at the time a certainly not life safe today. (Described in the Ingraham Guide web.nmsu.edu/~amato/ingraha… )

Is there a descent on sugar loaf that works well with one 60 meter rope or do you need two 60 meter ropes?

Likewise is there a descent with works well with one 70 meter rope?

How about 2 50 meter ropes via the Ingraham Guide's descent? Have those bolts been replaced? We happen to have a set of twin 50 meter ropes.

I would really like to take just one rope but from reading the descent it sounds like the 70 meter repel on a single rope has an unpleasant hanging repel station and a rats nest of nuts for an intermediate repel station.

Thanks
Pat

Pat, walk the exposed ridge towards the south from the summit. Near the end of the ridge there is a rap anchor on your left consisting of two good big bolts. With a single rope, you can rap to an intermediate anchor consisting of fixed wires (I have not used the intermediate station), then to the saddle. From there, scramble east to another short rap off a short slab. The first rap can be done easily with two ropes or a tagline, skipping the intermediate anchor.

From the end of the ridge, there is another anchor on the right, I've not used it, and there are odd tales about lack of intermediate anchors, or odd lengths between anchors, so I recommend the above.

Short answer to your original question is yes you can do it on a single rope, and I recommend the described route regardless of your rope length.

Coincidentally, this morning I updated the Sugarloaf page with the descent options that I know about. It may not be the most succinct, but I feel solid about what is behind the descriptions there. Perhaps in the future I'll cut down on the amount of verbage. Meanwhile, any feedback is welcome!

By the way, I've heard through the grapevine that there is an intermediate anchor on the rap to the saddle (the initial rap line that Robert mentions above). Although I think this is the best way to get down, I didn't notice an intermediate anchor last March before hitting the saddle.

Can someone really twist my arm (that may be what it takes) to convince me that there is an intermediate rap station above the saddle? I know there is one going the newer westerly way off the south spur. But that actually has two intermediate rap stations with the lower one being fixed gear behind a flake as of last March.

Bill Lawry wrote:Coincidentally, this morning I updated the Sugarloaf page with the descent options that I know about. It may not be the most succinct, but I feel solid about what is behind the descriptions there. Perhaps in the future I'll cut down on the amount of verbage. Meanwhile, any feedback is welcome! By the way, I've heard through the grapevine that there is an intermediate anchor on the rap to the saddle (the initial rap line that Robert mentions above). Although I think this is the best way to get down, I didn't notice an intermediate anchor last March before hitting the saddle. Can someone really twist my arm (that may be what it takes) to convince me that there is an intermediate rap station above the saddle? I know there is one going the newer westerly way off the south spur. But that actually has two intermediate rap stations with the lower one being fixed gear behind a flake as of last March.

FYI, in the old days we walked south and then west around sugar-loaf rather than north back to the packs as described in your write up. We walked underneath the two currently recommended descents.

climber pat wrote: FYI, in the old days we walked south and then west around sugar-loaf rather than north back to the packs as described in your write up. We walked underneath the two currently recommended descents.

Did you approach from Aguirre Springs or over the saddle from Fillmore canyon? Ingraham I believe describes the approach from Fillmore Canyon. You are correct, most people that I know walk around north then east to packs (i.e. if climbing the North Face, walk under the eye on the way to the packs). I have seen packs left at the junction of the Indian Hollow and Sugarloaf approach trails, and I guessed that they either walked around the way you describe or descended the gully all the way to the trail.

I always just soloed the thing and walked off. Always a walk off though, fourth class plus??

Robert Cort wrote: Did you approach from Aguirre Springs or over the saddle from Fillmore canyon? Ingraham I believe describes the approach from Fillmore Canyon. You are correct, most people that I know walk around north then east to packs (i.e. if climbing the North Face, walk under the eye on the way to the packs). I have seen packs left at the junction of the Indian Hollow and Sugarloaf approach trails, and I guessed that they either walked around the way you describe or descended the gully all the way to the trail.

We approached from Aguirre Springs via the Indian Hollow trail which was called the Red Dot trail at the time. I gather even earlier someone had marked the trail with red paint although I never saw any red paint.

George Perkins pointed me to Jackson's guide regarding some details I'd omitted. That description matches descent 'i' on this morning's MP.com page. I've tweaked descent 'i' to more closely match the wording of Jackson's guide. Notably, Jackson does mention an intermediate rap anchor on the way down to the saddle. I must have missed that when we went that way on double ropes. My bad.

climber pat wrote: FYI, in the old days we walked south and then west around sugar-loaf rather than north back to the packs as described in your write up. We walked underneath the two currently recommended descents.

Is this a walk off from the summit?

More generally, I'll invite everyone to keep hammering at the current descriptions. Many others have successfully gotten off the summit many more times than I have. What I could see of late, though, is that the new rap line that also starts from the south ridge introduced some confusion when folks were working only off of the earlier description for rapping to the south saddle; it's much longer than 150 feet to the ground from the top-most anchors of the new rap line!

Bill Lawry wrote:George Perkins pointed me to Jackson's guide regarding some details I'd omitted. That description matches descent 'i' on this morning's MP.com page. I've tweaked descent 'i' to more closely match the wording of Jackson's guide. Notably, Jackson does mention an intermediate rap anchor on the way down to the saddle. I must have missed that when we went that way on double ropes. My bad. Is this a walk off from the summit? More generally, I'll invite everyone to keep hammering at the current descriptions. Many others have successfully gotten off the summit many more times than I have. What I could see of late, though, is that the new rap line that also starts from the south ridge introduced some confusion when folks were working only off of the earlier description for rapping to the south saddle; it's much longer than 150 feet to the ground from the top-most anchors of the new rap line!

Sorry I was unclear, we rapped the east descent as described in iii but instead of the very painful descent down the north gully we would walk around the back of sugar loaf going south, then west, and finally north. The walking part of the descent would connect with both of the two newer descents eventually walking underneath the eyes back to the packs.

The anchors were designed for 50 meter ropes (maybe even 45 meters). I was curious if they had been replaced. If not they are certainly death traps now.

EDIT: There is no walk off. Maybe a 5.11-12 climber like tradryan would consider soloing 5.6 walking.

climber pat wrote: Sorry I was unclear, we rapped the east descent as described in iii but instead of the very painful descent down the north gully we would walk around the back of sugar loaf going south, then west, and finally north. The walking part of the descent would connect with both of the two newer descents eventually walking underneath the eyes back to the packs. The anchors were designed for 50 meter ropes (maybe even 45 meters). I was curious if they had been replaced. If not they are certainly death traps now.

Views from Google Earth make this look like a fun variation to getting down, assuming adequate anchors.

climber pat, Would you mind if I added the following information and attributed it to you?

"We have rapped the east-side descent as described in 'iii' but instead of the very painful descent north down the gully we would walk around the back of Sugarloaf going south and then west to join descent 'i' at the saddle south of Sugarloaf. The anchors were designed for 50 meter ropes (maybe even 45 meters). I do not know about the current integrity of the anchors on the east-side rap."

If you'd rather not, that is fine. Or modify it as desired.
Bill L

Bill Lawry wrote:climber pat, Would you mind if I added the following information and attributed it to you? "We have rapped the east-side descent as described in 'iii' but instead of the very painful descent north down the gully we would walk around the back of Sugarloaf going south and then west to join descent 'i' at the saddle south of Sugarloaf. The anchors were designed for 50 meter ropes (maybe even 45 meters). I do not know about the current integrity of the anchors on the east-side rap." If you'd rather not, that is fine. Or modify it as desired. Bill L

That will be fine.

I plan on climbing sugar loaf this weekend and will take a look at it. On of the reasons I was asking about the anchors is that my current rope is more like a 55 meter rope because I had to cut the end off of it. I just bought a 70 meter rope which should arrive tomorrow so we are covered no matter the condition of the anchors.

I am moving back to Las Cruces this winter after being gone for 15 years. I look forward to hooking up with the current climbers in the area getting back into the organ mountains.

I've added it.

climber pat wrote:I plan on climbing sugar loaf this weekend and will take a look at it.

I'm curious to hear what you find.

This thread makes me miss the beautiful and hostile Organs...sigh.

Bill, I saw your updates and I think "i" is pretty clear and consistent with how I remember it. When we climbed it in April we used the "i" descent with two ropes, so we got to the saddle in one rap. But I was sort of watching for the alleged intermediate anchor and I never spotted one.

Climber Pat, two ropes are a good idea since there is so much risk for stuck ropes and you would probably have to leave gear if you do the "i" descent with one rope. We bumbed into another party on the summit who climbed with a single 70. My party had 60m half ropes. Since we/they weren't sure if the 70 would make it we teamed up for the descent. It was clear from the saddle as we pulled the ropes that the single 70 would have come up very short. Have fun and post up a trip report if you have time.

Chris Miller wrote:When we climbed it in April we used the "i" descent with two ropes, so we got to the saddle in one rap. But I was sort of watching for the alleged intermediate anchor and I never spotted one.

The above is exactly what I would say about 'i' on our trip up there last March.

Chris Miller wrote:But I was sort of watching for the alleged intermediate anchor and I never spotted one.

I assure you it's there (although I haven't had occasion to use it). In fact, last time I was there (about a month ago), I think I spotted a second intermediate anchor. If I recall, you need to move a little right of the fall-line into a crack system to find the intermediate anchor. The rats nest of old webbing was cleaned up a little within the last year.

Welcome back Pat.

Robert Cort wrote: If I recall, you need to move a little right of the fall-line into a crack system to find the intermediate anchor.

Reminds me of a route in Cochise Stronghold where one pulls up onto a sea of chicken heads. About 40 feet away somewhere is a belay anchor. Most would spend a lot of time searching for it if it weren't for this guy sticking up his head: .

Robert Cort wrote: I assure you it's there (although I haven't had occasion to use it). In fact, last time I was there (about a month ago), I think I spotted a second intermediate anchor. If I recall, you need to move a little right of the fall-line into a crack system to find the intermediate anchor. The rats nest of old webbing was cleaned up a little within the last year. Welcome back Pat.

I believe you. I really wasn't looking very hard for it. I was just happy to be getting out of the hurricane force winds.

We climbed sugarloaf last weekend and came down the east descent. The top anchor is ok, consisting of a single bolt and a couple of old pins only one of which is still in the crack. We added a nut. It could use a new bolt. The existing bolt is a 3/8 inch bolt looks good. Two ropes easily reach the ground.

We took only one 70 meter rope to commit to finding a good way down with only one rope. The second anchor on this descent consists of 3 unusable 1/4 leapers which are very badly rusted and 1 ancient micro nut. I left a small cam because I was unwilling to trust my weight to any of these pieces. This anchor needs two new bolts to be usable. (Sorry, I did not take a picture)

After reaching the saddle we hiked right going around sugarloaf and connecting up with the i and ii descents. It probably was 5 minutes to get to the i saddle.

We looked at repelling the gully to the left during the approach to sugarloaf and that looks like a nightmare.

One significant advantage to the east descent is that it is sheltered from the prevailing wind direction making pulling ropes much easier during high wind events.

To sum it up, the east descent is one double rope repel to the ground with one good anchor or 2 single 60 or 70 meter rope repels to the ground with one very bad anchor.

Thanks for the beta Climber Pat. Is that top anchor for the East descent located above the South spur? If so, it might be a better option since like you said it will get you out of the wind, maybe help avoid stuck ropes, and avoid scrambling down that spur.

Here is a satellite image of sugarloaf. The east descent is near the 'E' in east descent. I did not look for the other descent anchors but believe they are near the 'south spur'.

There is a cairn consisting of 3 large stones 30 feet above the east anchor right at the location we would unrope from the north face route.