Leading a climb: How to deal with noncooperation?

If you want to act like a leader, you might have a break before entering dangerous/technical terrain, and ask members of your party to double check their crampons (help them if needed) and suggest they poop now if they can. If you are leading folks who are less experienced than you, and one of them has to fix a crampon in the middle of technical terrain, you already screwed up.

Every time I see this thread I just see "noncoop" and I really wish it said nincompoops...
"Leading a climb: How to deal with nincompoops?"

It doesn't sound like you are a guide, but it's unclear if this was friends, a club climb, meet up group, or what. If you are a designated leader then it's up to you to set expectations in your communications before the climb leaves the trail head. It might seem uncool to spell everything out, but if they are bothered by the spiel, then you don't want to climb with them anyway.

Peter J wrote: Every time I see this thread I just see "noncoop" and I really wish it said nincompoops...
"Leading a climb: How to deal with nincompoops?"

OMG, I'm not the only one! That's exactly what I saw at first, too!

Climbing with people that have the same style and goals as you is important for your and other enjoyment (and saftey sometimes).  If you went with a group of random/new climbers then that is on you for having expectations I am assuming you didn't discuss before hand.  

"Does anyone with experience leading climbs have advice for how to deal with something like this"

Cut the rope and haul ass away. 

Jonathan Awerbuch wrote: If you want to act like a leader, you might have a break before entering dangerous/technical terrain, and ask members of your party to double check their crampons (help them if needed) and suggest they poop now if they can. If you are leading folks who are less experienced than you, and one of them has to fix a crampon in the middle of technical terrain, you already screwed up.

I reread what I wrote at first and can see how I didn't describe what happened well.  This issue is that I did everything you said here, but had one member ignoring it because he didn't realize that for a 9 man group to climb they need to take breaks together (also I'm not just talking about a quick breather, but stuff like taking a dump or eating food).  We left Muir at 10:30p, and got back at 2pm (every time I've gone the ranger has said to get down before noon, preferably 11am). The guy taking a dump was less than 10 minutes after a break where I specifically checked that no one needed to adjust gear, eat or poop.  Also, to clarify, this was one person out of a nine person group and everyone was frustrated with him.  I'm don't think there is much we could have done during the climb, I'm wondering if anyone has suggestions for what I can do ahead of time (like what expectations are necessary to communicate), or if 9 is just too big of a group with only one experienced person (if so how big would be reasonable), or if this is just a bizarre situation and I shouldn't worry about having someone like that on a team again.  Also since some have asked, the group was all people I know, but who had never climbed anything more than a colorado 14er or Mt. Adams but was in good physical condition (1500 ft climb in one hour with 55lb pack).  We were in different states, so we couldn't do a test run on something easier beforehand.

Luke Stuart wrote:

I reread what I wrote at first and can see how I didn't describe what happened well.  This issue is that I did everything you said here, but had one member ignoring it because he didn't realize that for a 9 man group to climb they need to take breaks together (also I'm not just talking about a quick breather, but stuff like taking a dump or eating food).  We left Muir at 10:30p, and got back at 2pm (every time I've gone the ranger has said to get down before noon, preferably 11am). The guy taking a dump was less than 10 minutes after a break where I specifically checked that no one needed to adjust gear, eat or poop.  Also, to clarify, this was one person out of a nine person group and everyone was frustrated with him.  I'm don't think there is much we could have done during the climb, I'm wondering if anyone has suggestions for what I can do ahead of time (like what expectations are necessary to communicate), or if 9 is just too big of a group with only one experienced person (if so how big would be reasonable), or if this is just a bizarre situation and I shouldn't worry about having someone like that on a team again.  Also since some have asked, the group was all people I know, but who had never climbed anything more than a colorado 14er or Mt. Adams but was in good physical condition (1500 ft climb in one hour with 55lb pack).  We were in different states, so we couldn't do a test run on something easier beforehand.

This is why "mountaineering" sucks.

Luke Stuart wrote:

.... 9 man group ... ...in different states.... couldn't do a test run....

Well, next time hand out Immodium AD to those who even suspect they might get the shits. Seriously, it could cut the unplanned shitting significantly. But really, I would just split up into smaller groups based on hiking speed, no more than four per team. Honestly, I have only gone caving with such large teams. 

You led a 9-person group, from different states, on the most heavily glaciated peak in the Lower 48 when nobody in the group had any experience aside from Colorado 14’ers and (I’m assuming) the South Ridge of Adams? And you took from 10:30 until 2 from Muir? Stop complaining about non-cooperation. You’re lucky you didn’t need a rescue.

Also, to keep the break requests from happening, I suggest one of these: 

Jimmy Downhillinthesnow wrote: You led a 9-person group, from different states, on the most heavily glaciated peak in the Lower 48 when nobody in the group had any experience aside from Colorado 14’ers and (I’m assuming) the South Ridge of Adams? And you took from 10:30 until 2 from Muir? Stop complaining about non-cooperation. You’re lucky you didn’t need a rescue.

^^^ This. Taking one or two novices up Rainier (or any technical peak) is a pretty big responsibility, and takes a fair bit of planning and some leadership ability. Taking a group of nine novices up is sheer arrogance and foolishness on your part. If nothing else, the law of averages pretty much guarantees that one of those nine will turn out to be a drag on the rest of the group, like the pooper.

If your nine friends really wanted to get up Rainier and didn't have the skills to do so on their own, they could have done a guided ascent, probably had a better time with better odds of summiting, and learned a few things about glacier travel in the process. Alternatively, they could have put in the time and mileage, acquired a few skills, and done the ascent on their own. 

I wouldn't take 9 people up my local sport crag without expecting some kind of shit show. Rainer? Are you kidding?

9 people?  ugggh....  (facepalm...)

Taking nine inexperienced people up Rainier shows poor judgement on your part. How many rope teams was that?

FrankPS wrote: Taking nine inexperienced people up Rainier shows poor judgement on your part. How many rope teams was that?

It was four. Three to say "Is that a storm cloud over there?". And one to get altitude sickness.

Your first post indicated it was a team new climbers, your second indicated it was a group of nine new climbers that sounds more like a cluster fuck. Next time take fewer new climbers like two. Or with that many people hire a couple of guides. 

Just solo braj! 

Paul Hutton wrote: Just solo braj! 

Hell yeah Paul, tell us more!!