Last Exit

Matthew Tangemanwrote:

The real tragedy of the new routes at Garden Wall is all the COVID themed names. If I had a nickel for every route called "social distancing" put up in the last year...

Redact em all. 

My generations curmudgeonly rants will be about crags having mandatory belay cards and auto-belays installed on the crag classics. 

Sign up in February for the lottery system for your auto belay permit on iron horse (does not include chimney due to multiple knee scrape lawsuits)

Jon wrote: "Edit to add a note about the 'hyperdevelopment'. If you don't like what you see at a specific crag or route, please try to directly contact the people who might know more about that specific route or crag. I think this leads to more constructive dialog without airing 'dirty laundry'. Just a request..."

Is this MP policy?  In any case I disagree.  MP by its very nature encourages at the appearance of over/excessive/hyper development - its seems that it should at least allow serious and non aggressive discussion of the issues.

Darryl Cramerwrote:

Jon wrote: "Edit to add a note about the 'hyperdevelopment'. If you don't like what you see at a specific crag or route, please try to directly contact the people who might know more about that specific route or crag. I think this leads to more constructive dialog without airing 'dirty laundry'. Just a request..."

Is this MP policy?  In any case I disagree.  MP by its very nature encourages at the appearance of over/excessive/hyper development - its seems that it should at least allow serious and non aggressive discussion of the issues.

To your last sentence - yeah. But since none of the people who actually 'perpetrated' this 'hyperdevelopment' are actually responding in this thread, and several people ITT don't even live in Washington, you're not doing anything but complaining to an audience rather than having a dialogue. 

Also, what is 'Last Exit' supposed to mean?

Daniel – That last sentence changed the context from Index specific to the impact of MP in general.    I think you missed that.  Several comments:

1. When I made my initial post I was not at all thinking of the so called Via Ferrata. Although I would note that I once flagged a photo of the via ferrata leading to the MidWall as being something MP might not want to show. I received no response back.   ☹   

2. I have received a several emails, some of which I haven’t read yet, by active new routers at Index.  One person who replied on the thread surprised me because one of his FAs as reported struck me a while ago as the perfect example of the way MP gives climbers a really bad rep.  (See Mile High Club & adjacent route)   What do I mean by that? A new route heavily bolted and promoted and then soon after another new route appears next door also heavily bolted and promoted.  I am not judging the routes themselves just that the “developers”  (that term alone must make land managers cringe)  created a route and promoted it as a product and soon put a new one right next door.  

3. Last Exit was kind of a silly title.  “Exit” was a not so hidden allusion to the Exits 32 & 38 where I see “development as a product to promote" originated in WA and hyper development first was celebrated in in WA.  “Last” meant if climbers don’t become aware of their actions and the impact how they report on MP they will run out of future areas to climb.   Sound fanciful?  I don’t think so.  For example some of the best desert columns in Wa are off limits to climbers and the land manager's web page  specifically mentions past internet publicity of climbing and how climbing is prohibited.  Imagine you were managing some land and only had Vantage as an example – how would you react to climbers suddenly showing up on your land?  I think the best columns in the State are in MRNP – think climbers will ever be allowed to develop there without controversy?  Doubtful - Look at New Halen as an example.

Here is another Exit type wall but better than most of the Exit formations. A trail down below and a level mile approach – think land mangers will be excited for this to turn into another Exit 38?  

By the way this is the perfect example of hyper development (Adorable Endpiece):   mountainproject.com/route/1…  Putting up stuff like this impacts everyone in the long term.

Darryl Cramerwrote:

Daniel – That last sentence changed the context from Index specific to the impact of MP in general.    I think you missed that.  Several comments:

1. When I made my initial post I was not at all thinking of the so called Via Ferrata. Although I would note that I once flagged a photo of the via ferrata leading to the MidWall as being something MP might not want to show. I received no response back.   ☹   

2. I have received a several emails some of which I haven’t read yet by active new routers at Index.  One person who replied on the thread surprised me because one of his FAs as reported struck me a while ago as the perfect example of the way MP gives climbers a really bad rep.  (See Mile High Club & adjacent route)   What do I mean by that? A new route heavily bolted and promoted and then soon after another new route appears next door also heavily bolted and promoted.  I am not judging the routes themselves just that the “developers”  (that term alone must make land managers cringe)  created a route and promoted it as a product and soon put a new one right next door.  

Wait so a new route goes in and then another new route goes in and you are mad about it? So far as I can tell none of the routes on morning star have led to access being taken. In addition mile high club is a poor example of hyper development maybe darrin can comment on that specifically. But I helped rad take fixed lines up for the new route and looking over at the new route the main issue wasn't trundling or moss or litchen the only thing about it being over development would be the bolts. 

3. Last Exit was kind of a silly title.  “Exit” was a not so hidden allusion to the Exits 32 & 38 where I see “development as a product to promote" originated in WA and hyper development first was celebrated in in WA.  “Last” meant if climbers don’t become aware of their actions and the impact how they report on MP they will run out of future areas to climb.   Sound fanciful?  I don’t think so.

How does putting more routes in at index or exit 38 on existing walls in existing climbing areas have any relationship to new totally undeveloped climbing areas? I don't think Rick pays much attention to what is going on in index. Specifically in Ollalie they let a whole new mountain bike trail go in which requires significantly more "hyper development" than a climbing area. Also if anything there has been underdevelopment in the vast majority of climbing areas. There have been what  25 new climbs in the exits in the last 15 years excluding DT? Right now I would rather get to have new routes in the exits and maybe get in trouble than maintain the status quo and have no new routes.

  For example some of the best desert columns in Wa are off limits to climbers and the land manager's web page  specifically mentions past internet publicity of climbing and how climbing is prohibited.  Imagine you were managing some land and had Vantage as an example – how would you react to climber suddenly developing  on your land?

That is totally separate from Index, developing a new area is so different than an existing area. If someone went out and developed an area without telling the land manager that would be a poor choice. Can you add the link to that web page?

  I think the best columns in the State are in MRNP – think climbers will ever be allowed to develop there without controversy?

Many national parks have climbing bans, I don't think if we stopped developing today anything would change in regard to MRNP.

  Doubtful - Look at New Halen as an example.

Here is another Exit type wall but better than most of the Exit formations. A trail down below and a level mile approach – think land mangers will be excited for this to turn into another Exit 38?  

By the way this is the perfect example of hyper development (Adorable Endpiece):   mountainproject.com/route/1…  Putting up stuff like this impacts everyone in the long term.

How can you please point to an example of the "impact"? What climbs have not been able to happen because hyper development directly caused the issue. More importantly how do you think new routing should be done? What would you change? How do you put a sport climb up without hyper development? 

You also need to point to routes not publicized as hyper development because if the development is so egregious then you wouldn't even need a mountain project page to complain about it. 

I also think more importantly, if the land managers are not upset or putting a stop to developing are new routes really that offensive to them? 

Am I correct in interpreting the disdain for "hyperdevelopment" here as a disdain for two-star, heavily bolted routes that are just gonna get mossed over in a year? I.e., putting a lot of effort/money into developing a route that doesn't actually offer much for the area or community. Development for development's sake.

Darryl Cramerwrote:

Daniel – That last sentence changed the context from Index specific to the impact of MP in general.    I think you missed that.  Several comments:

Yes, did miss that, my bad.

1. When I made my initial post I was not at all thinking of the so called Via Ferrata. Although I would note that I once flagged a photo of the via ferrata leading to the MidWall as being something MP might not want to show. I received no response back.   ☹   

Yeah I don't think MP cares at all about stuff like this. Ever since Nick performed the great cleansing of the forums it's pretty obvious they're only here for the money

2. I have received a several emails, some of which I haven’t read yet, by active new routers at Index.  One person who replied on the thread surprised me because one of his FAs as reported struck me a while ago as the perfect example of the way MP gives climbers a really bad rep.  (See Mile High Club & adjacent route)   What do I mean by that? A new route heavily bolted and promoted and then soon after another new route appears next door also heavily bolted and promoted.  I am not judging the routes themselves just that the “developers”  (that term alone must make land managers cringe)  created a route and promoted it as a product and soon put a new one right next door.  

Is it a bad thing that Darin and Rad put up Mile High Club, a safe, accessible, indeed 'heavily' bolted, enjoyable route, that tons of people are climbing and enjoying? In an area (not wilderness) where such bolting is allowed by the land manager? Is it a bad thing that Blake Herrington put it in his guidebook to 'promote' the route? (On the contrary I think he writes about it as being a high quality route and one of the top 150 in the Cascades, or whatever. Same goes for Infinite Bliss.) Is Nelson/Whitelaw's Tooth Fairy (I think the only other fully bolted moderate in the Cascades) a bad route? Both have been up and swarmed for a couple years, what actual reaction have land managers had?

It seems like you don't like the style those routes have been put up in (both top down and in the way they've been shared with the community), as to which everyone us entitled to an opinion. But your other concern is about land management and losing access. To which there is no evidence that a line of bolts down Vega North tower has any impact.  

3. Last Exit was kind of a silly title.  “Exit” was a not so hidden allusion to the Exits 32 & 38 where I see “development as a product to promote" originated in WA and hyper development first was celebrated in in WA. 

You know as well as anyone how much effort it takes to clean and prep a route in the rainforest, even more so when you're cleaning rhino rock instead of granite. Getting people on the routes is essential to keeping them clean and I'm guessing that's a big factor in why Burdo/Windham tried pretty hard to get people to come out to the exits. If you read Burdo's writings you'll understand how much he loved the shitty andesite out here. 

 “Last” meant if climbers don’t become aware of their actions and the impact how they report on MP they will run out of future areas to climb.   Sound fanciful?  I don’t think so.  For example some of the best desert columns in Wa are off limits to climbers and the land manager's web page  specifically mentions past internet publicity of climbing and how climbing is prohibited. 

Are you talking about the private property at Vantage? If so I recall hearing that one climber intentionally irritated the landowner who was a crusty fellow in the first place. 

 Imagine you were managing some land and only had Vantage as an example – how would you react to climbers suddenly showing up on your land?  I think the best columns in the State are in MRNP – think climbers will ever be allowed to develop there without controversy?

See now this (a national park) is something else entirely. It's already managed with the intent of preserving the wilderness but not to an extent of an actual wilderness area. But nationwide there is precedent for allowing bolting and climbing on a widespread scale at national parks. I think if climbers pursued these columns etc with respect and a legitimate plan with the rangers who manage the land it could happen. 

Treading carefully on purposefully protected land is one thing. Wilderness areas, national parks, etc. But on state parks, national forest, climber-owned land - where the purpose is to allow people to enjoy the land, on snowmobiles, dirt bikes, lots of things that are far more impactful than cleaning and bolting - I think land managers simply don't care so much. Like someone said upthread I would guess they are far more worried if people start getting hurt or killed than the way people climb new routes.

  Doubtful - Look at New Halen as an example.

Here is another Exit type wall but better than most of the Exit formations. A trail down below and a level mile approach – think land mangers will be excited for this to turn into another Exit 38?  

I was up there yesterday and damn it looks amazing. The situation up there is sticky I think because of the proximity of the national park. I heard the NPS rangers shut down all climbing activity because boulderers were aggressively cleaning? Again - tread lightly on already protected land.

IMO, climbing should be allowed in a NRA tho.

By the way this is the perfect example of hyper development (Adorable Endpiece):   mountainproject.com/route/1…  Putting up stuff like this impacts everyone in the long term.

Yeah idk why Leland is wasting his time on that when there's so many untouched crags out there. But realistically, two short new routes on an established crag impact absolutely no one. 

I guess I'll end by wondering out loud how much climbing there would be at Index without a load of cleaning, trundling and rap bolting? Or do you wish it was still a place to aid climb through the moss?

Just to be clear that picture is a few hundred miles away from New Halen.  Sorry  I confused you

Isn't it New Halem?

Darryl Cramerwrote:

 For example some of the best desert columns in Wa are off limits to climbers and the land manager's web page  specifically mentions past internet publicity of climbing and how climbing is prohibited.  Imagine you were managing some land and only had Vantage as an example – how would you react to climbers suddenly showing up on your land? 

Trevor, I think this is what he was referencing: https://www.fws.gov/refuge/columbia/

On the official US Fish and Wildlife website: "Due to the ‘discovery’ of an online video, there has been a surge in rock climbing at Columbia. We understand the attraction of the basalt columns to climbers. However, those same columns are also attractive to wildlife—bird nests, marmot dens, snake hibernacula, bat roosts, and any number of other uses. Please respect the fact that Columbia NWR is closed to rock climbing and that there are any number of other areas to climb basalt columns in central Washington."

Nathan Pwrote:

Trevor, I think this is what he was referencing: https://www.fws.gov/refuge/columbia/

On the official US Fish and Wildlife website: "Due to the ‘discovery’ of an online video, there has been a surge in rock climbing at Columbia. We understand the attraction of the basalt columns to climbers. However, those same columns are also attractive to wildlife—bird nests, marmot dens, snake hibernacula, bat roosts, and any number of other uses. Please respect the fact that Columbia NWR is closed to rock climbing and that there are any number of other areas to climb basalt columns in central Washington."

I read that as it was never open but due to a video there are even more people breaking the rule. Also is there any wildlife refuge that allows climbing?

https://www.instagram.com/alexhonnold/?hl=en

all climbing and development in france, europe, and most importantly in washington state is now at risk. when will these pros learn that this blight on the earth's stone will inevitably lead to loss of access and development, just like it has in chamonix

Via ferratas are dumb but you're being a ridiculous alarmist

Meanwhile. 

3,000 People a Day Become Climbers. We Knew Olympic Sport Climbing Was Popular, But Really?

https://www.climbing.com/competition/olympics/sport-climbing-olympics-news-analysis/

https://www.mountainproject.com/area/105858670/wichita-mountains-wildlife-refuge

As a joe shmoe 5.10 flailer, I'd just like to chime in that the recent development at Index has been incredibly appreciated. The routes have bomber hardward, bolts in thoughtful clipping positions (where there are bolts), and most importantly, are super fun lines! 

During crag banter I've hear nothing but similar appreciation for these new routes. It's wild they sat behind walls of moss for decades.

Darryl Cramerwrote:

https://www.mountainproject.com/area/105858670/wichita-mountains-wildlife-refuge

 

I don't think that is a particularly strong example....