Great White Icicle's new anchors

I'm with Mark on this one. Well said, except for a few typos. :) Keep the horseshit on this thread.

I'm also full of horseshit!

bsmoot wrote:I'm also full of horseshit!

Was gonna suggest chickenshit, but, I know better...

Its not a "natural" resource if it ain't natural...

My point from most all the above is that its issue avoidance. Getting in front of the issue before it becomes a blip on the radar. Not having it become an issue that anyone, land manager included, has to deal with. Granted, it is my own personal belief that ice farming has no place on public land. But, it also just happens to coincide, in a multi-scattered sort of way, with the charter of the WCNF, etc. Its a bad idear.

If its minor anyhow, and not really noticable, then don't do it.

Access is a fickle thing. Check out them poor lads in Bozeman dealing with the forest service right now (join the SWCC and take the survey now, please take the time!). I think we enjoy a good if not great relationship with the gumment folks 'round here (folks that did the trail day at the Slips last fall in BCC should know this, for example). Why push it?

It has the potential to be a cancer. Clip it before it spreads.

And, if Colorado folks want to take the issue to their land manager and propose some guidelines, hey, go for it. Let us know how it works out.

Climb the wild ice!

Mark Nelson wrote:I can see the point of taking half the Home Depot up there and altering the natural resource; but most of what I've seen with ice farming doesn't do anything to redirect the waterflow out of the main ravine areas & doesn't harm the natural resource. Come up with an example that does and I'm with you; otherwise you all sound to me like you support baseless conservation policy out of nothing more than fear.

On what data do you base your statements? I'm a little tired of repeating that to take action on a public natural resource without conducting research that creates a policy is THE PROBLEM. You keep on saying that as long as nothing is harmed it's fine to farm ice, I'm agreeing with you, then asking for data to support that nothing is being harmed. I'm not saying that farming ice is bad, even if I don't see the point of it with so much ice in the area, I'm saying that there is a legal and rational way to pursue farming ice, and just doing it on public lands isn't it. If the USFS, etc. is okay with the farmed ice, great. I'm not sure procedure has been follwed, and unless it has, someone has at the very least littered up there.

Hey guys:

I think we are arguing about something that we can agree within one degree or another. I'm not sayin go out and break the law; I'm sayin go out and debate a policy that better supports conservation and get land managers to support climbing access.

If the farming is vandalizing and/or littering the natural resource, I'd oppose the farming. What if the farming better mitigates approach erosion? I'd support it. If the farming better promotes technical recreation, say developing a fat WI4+/5 pillar instead of a WI2/3 thin crappy-pro slab; as long as vandalism & littering is not occurring; I'd go for it.

Take a look at the Fang it's farmed. Definitely a classic; we've also been able to readjust some boulders to allow for better flows on some other hills; very little impact and the ice offers better pro, climbing, & mitigates erosion. A great deal of Ouray is farmed without any adverse effect to the natural resource.

I think a problem we have in the rky mtn region with respect to ice climbing, is 1,000 climbers chasing 10 climbs. If we are better able to manage the limited number of climbs & the natural resource during the winter months than the steward agencies; shouldn't we do so?

Tico - I've got no problem engaging you on this matter, but it looks to me like you joined up on this site to post an agenda to push access fear to try and press climbers into not taking part in their public land. Maybe I'm reading you wrong.

Some good friends of mine with many more years experience in land conservation had a conversation with me while climbing up a Devils this past summer about the place of agencies in our public lands. These agencies are stewards only & they sometimes forget their mission or are completely insubordinate to pursue their own personal agenda. It's up to the People to stand up to these agendas; as we have the power to do so in this country & effect change. As well, the People also have the responsibility to promote conservation along with advancing our recreation; for the most part, I think our climbing community does this better than any other recreational user group. If this is all horseshit, then what purpose are we serving if only to publish brochures about all the effort we make to keep our lands conserved?

The ice farming is the least of the environmental worries surrounding the GWI. Most of the watershed problems in LCC come from people, primarily garbage and waste from the resorts and people partying and using the river. Last time i did the GWI there was piss all over around the base. Coupled with the proliferation of new climbers in the area, new routes, anchors,crap left around, people pulling on plants, stepping on lichens, etc., making a fuss about a tiny trickle of water diverted seems like a major overreaction.
If you are really so worried about damaging a natural resource I suggest you quit climbing. You damage soil and create erosion by approaching the cliff, you step on lichens and kill plants, hitting rock with your tools or crampons damages the rock, and don't go potty out there. . . Diverting the flow of water 20 feet I would guess causes far less damage than all of the climbers going up there.
As far as the forest service, though they have been pretty decent at getting along with climbers and helping with climbing issues, they have not proven to be great stewards of the canyon. Look at what they allowed the ski resorts to do!

mike b wrote:The ice farming is the least of the environmental worries surrounding the GWI.

Currently and practically, I think your right. But, the potential is there and it is blatently a bigger issue. Social trail and evidence of use is pretty natural to any area seeing folks. Building a water diversion system isn't.

Ya gotta take care of your own. Climbers should be aware of and concerned with issues pertaining to climbers. Its easy to dilute the issue by focusing on some of the bigger stuff up canyon we don't have as much put with as climbers (as backcountry skiers, yeah). Etc.

Anyhoo, good discussion.

Take care this weekend on the ice. Avy hazard has to have gone way up.

Cheers.

The more aesthetic issue for the short term is the proliferation of anchors up there. They are much more distracting than anything else I saw. Is there something we can or should do about them.

Brian in SLC said:

"Was gonna suggest chickenshit, but, I know better..."

OK Brian, because you don't know the whole picture, I'm gonna cut you some slack and let that one slide...Don't let it happen again.

Clay, which bolts were you referring to?

These:
There is a set on the right wall above the first pitch. They are also near obvious gear placements. The next new set is just above the bulge pitch and are (unfortunately for my right knee) right in the fall line of ice coming off the upper pitch. They are on the left/middle of the ice in a little 2' dry patch of rock. My friend said the old upper belay was replaced and then there is another set of bolts 10' above and right of those.

"Are the new fixed anchors low visual impact?" bright and shiny, right where a canyoneer would want to see them

"corrosion resistant?" yes, I think

"I was planning to remove those crazy-ugly super-long chains on pitch 1 this year. Did they replace those with something lower impact?" no, but with all the use they get from simultaneous multiple parties it might be a good idea to let them stay the way they are.

You guys should go and see what's up there for yourselves. I'm just a hack and I'm not about to change anything. Everyone I've been with and around up there notices the new stuff and they all have said they don't like it. They don't necessarily add much in the way of safety either.

To see this thread go up made me very happy. It's something that I've been talking/thinking about for some time. Unfortunately the topic hasn't really been discussed. The discussion on land use and access was interesting in a sort of "talking heads" sort of way.
More importantly I think is what the diversion and the anchors have done to the climbing.
First let me say that I understand that the GWI is heavily trafficed. I've seen about 10 seasons come and go and I do get the increase in use. What saddens me is the complete breakdown on any kind of style or even common courtesy ove there.
First the anchors. Sprouting like weeds. Why? Because at some point this route went from a multi-pitch WALK OFF to a series of stacked single pitch routes.
I may be wrong but folks, my self included, would drive to the lot LOOK at the top pitch and make the decision to climb the route. The whole route.
If it didn't look like it would go we waited. If it looked like it might go we'd climb up and EXIT the top using a combo of ice, roots, rock and turf. There was no rapping. The anchors were anchors until recently just bolts. No hanging nest of tat with rap rings or chains.

Now, it seems to me, folks climb as high as they are comfortable and rap. This throws a huge spanner in the works. One way traffic is a must. If you are unable to, for whatever reason, finish the route go to Provo or the Scruffy or Ouray and work on your climbing until you can complete the whole route.

On to this "diversion".
I doubt that the intention of the diverters was to make a WI II ramble that takes a huge amount time and rains down ice on parties below for much longer than when the tradition finish is done. This is what it has become and it is a nightmare and being used to lower the "difficulty" and provide an escape from the only spicy section on the whole route.
Now instead of being able to wait for parties to climb straight up and out the short last pitch we have to endure, a climb wide, traverse that there is no hiding from.

We are all climbers and the GWI could be such a better route if we all just cleaned it up. The tat, the rap anchors, the diversion and the style.

The big issue here is not the visual impact of the bumper crop of anchors it is the impact on the climbing itself. Making the decision to start up under another party with expectations that they would continue up and off is reasonable. To then have that party or soloist reverse direction and start rapping is at a minimum annoying and more realistically it's dangerous. I'm not saying that you can leave if it's necessary due to some snafu but don't plan on it, not on this route.

I fear you may be right. I guess it boils down to the old "dumbing down" of climbing. It is a shame that folks have such little respect for something that has a history so full of adventure and boldness on so many levels. I'm not a great climber but I do have respect for those that came before me and for those who may follow.

As far as climbing education here's some for free. The GWI is a MULTI-PITCH WALK OFF.

Would a "one way" sign be too much?

cdec,
You are sounding pompous. I don't know if you are intending to or not, but that is how it comes across to me.

If there is any rule, it is this: If you get there first, you climb first. There isn't any rule about how you are suppose to climb. There is an etiquette, but no rule.

Another rule when ice climbing, don't climb below other ice climbers (for obvious reasons.) If you choose not to follow this second rule, then that is your choice, but then don't bitch about how the people ahead of you are climbing, get there first next time. Or don't climb there that day.

You seem to think that you have certain rights to your ascent. No, you don't if someone is ahead of you.

I understand the get there first rule. I also am aware that I live in a crowded world and that just because I got there first doesn't give me the right to turn off my brain. Does getting to (your favorite classic here) at the crack of dawn give me the right to hang a top rope on it all day if others are wanting to climb it? Maybe, but is it right, good or cool? NO!

I'm also aware or rule 2 and am willing to take on the added hazard of climbing under others. The GWI is 5 or 6 pitches assuming everyone's going in the same direction starting the thing when someones up high should be fine but often due to change of direction it's not. We make decisions to climb under others all the time based on what the prevailing etiquette. I guess the problem is rules are easy etiquette isn't.
Imagine if crescent crack started sprouting rap stations. I don't like the offwith, I'll stop here and since I got here first screw whoever is below me. So what if I ruin someone else's climb.

I don't want to say no the the ice pickle and if there was a little more etiquette and a little less rule 1 I think more people would have more fun. Sorry if that sounds pompous

Thanks for the heads up.
That might clash with my planned ski descent. No worries though I'll make sure I'm up early and on it first armed with a bolt kit.

There really was an enormous amount of piss and tobacco spittle/wastings up there this morning. Its everywhere and I gotta admit I contributed to the pee, albeit far away from the route on the descent. Is the etiquette to pee 200 feet away from the streambeds? I know in the desert the etiquitte is to pee actually IN the streambeds because it washes out of the ecosystem faster. My neighbor is one of the city's watershed managers and says both BCC and LCC have enormously high fecal coliform levels. It gets filtered by the plant but does it continue to grow in the soil? Also, seeing how much pee is there since the last snow makes me pause at the amount you can't see in the summer. Wanna bivy by that belay anyone?

Tenesmus, from LNT people.
"Urine: Urine has little direct effect on vegetation or soil. In some instances urine may draw wildlife which are attracted to the salts. They can defoliate plants and dig up soil. Urinating on rocks, pine needles, and gravel is less likely to attract wildlife. Diluting urine with water from a water bottle can help minimize negative effects."

cdec an important point of information was provided in a study done at Glacier wherein they looked at waste within the guideline. I don't recall if urine was also reviewed, but human fecal waste was not breaking down as intended when buried and bacteria was more prevalent after a certain period. I think was a year passage (could be more -- I can't remember off the top of my head).

So, they were looking more into the wag bags to take all feces out. They were finding that LNT was indeed a good experiment that was having more positive results than negative. But they were concerned with sanitation.

I suspect sanitation will be more an issue in dealing with access and if we can come up with better ways to manage our waste than the current LNT; we should be able to offer more to land mgrs in responsible conservation of our climbing areas & also offer these other user groups a means to better conserve our environment.