Infinite Bliss Topo available to the public

[Chris Simmons]

Hey crew-
Chris McNamara just announced and posted at the Supertopo Forum the topo for Infinite Bliss. Of course, several people chimed in their unhappiness with the route lying within a Wilderness Area, and it got my wondering again about the routes history.
Its my understanding that the FA team went the North Bend ranger station and asked for clarification as to where the wilderness boundary was, and was sold a USGS map with the boundary incorrectly marked so as not to include the southern aspects of Mt. Garfield. Therefore, the team assumed it was OK to use power drill equipement and went to work. Can someone straighten me out?

[Matt Perkins]

I was one of those who got involved in discussing a response to this issue when it first came up last year. I don't know what the route developers believed about the boundary at any given time, though I DO know there was some confusion in our initial discussions of this issue. We were at first unsure whether the route actually lay inside or outside the boundary because when we looked at the USGS 7.5 minute topo after we got word of the complaint about the route we found that it showed the climb lying outside the Wilderness boundary.

Apart from the power drill issue, however, our discussions with the Forest Service and with the conservation group guy who first raised the complaint about Infinite Bliss have indicated that they were in fact more concerned with the potential impact of what they feared might become a popular sport climbing destination within a designated Wilderness area. If you think about it, that makes sense: in seeking to manage Wilderness areas to preserve solitude, habitat, views, etc., the type of tool used is less important than what the climbers actually do to the place and how many of them show up.

Be that as it may, the Forest Service does not permit climbers to use power drills inside designated Wilderness areas. Climbers should abide by these and other pertinent regulations such as raptor closures, parking and camping and fire restrictions, etc.

[Joseph Healy]

[From my posting to Chris McNamara on SuperTopo.com...]

Chris,

Hey, I saw on WCC that you were releasing, or had released, a topo on "Ignorant Bliss" in Washington. I definitely fall in the "chop, chop" response category to the climb and still feel that Washington state climbers were and are very remiss in not immediately chopping it. Leaving it doesn't represent the sort of compromises climbers should be making in a world where access is increasingly a difficult issue.

I very much wish you would reconsider your support of this kind of activity and immediately pull the topo - the whole debacle is just the of sort bad juju we definitely don't need, let alone encourage...

[tylersevery]

Why is it that there must always be conflict. Lets take "Infinite Bliss" for example. At the end of the day what would the difference be if it was hand bolted or machine bolted. Who really, deeply cares enough about such trivial issues? There are sewer pipes leaking raw slop into the bay every day, hillsides being ripped apart for 1000 unit multiplexes, there is a better place for this energy. It seems that the more involved one gets with issues, the more of a drag climbing becomes. As I look to the reasons I climb away from the crags, its not because I don't like sport climbers, bouldering or even the suedo trad at the crags, its the politics behind all these petty issues. We as a group have a much better waste of time than slapping each other around or waving a flag about who is right and who is wrong. Lets complain about the trash on the trail or lack of volunteerism that really truly keeps these areas healthy. When the day comes to a close, just be happy you have arms and legs to climb, there are much bigger concerns to worry about.

[Joseph Healy]

Actually the world is a morass of trouble, death, and destruction on any given day anywhere in the world - today it's here in the US (among other places). Now you surely can use that fact to comparatively trivialize anything if you care to do so. But the bolting, by power or hand drill, of this "route" is very much about the soul of, and future of, climbing and [pristine] rock.

The route is a mockery as far as I'm concerned and I am concerned, you obviously are too stressed by the whole issue and that's fine, too.

[tylersevery]

Whoa, hold on guy. I think the lack of stress is what defines my previous response. The point is, there are bigger things to sweat. Bolting a route that was never a hot item to climb in the first place isnt the end of rock climbing or pristine areas. Nobody pounds Becky for leading people to the summit to disturb the wildlife, trample bushes and leave slings behind. He is considered a god to most mountaineers and should be (In my view anyway). Our modern age brings about development, yes it's different and we must adjust. Overall, dont let it divide us. We all have different tolerances and stress levels, if we must accept the differences between religion then we can certianly accept the differences in points of view about putting a 3/8 hole in a rock somewhere. Wilderness areas are there for everyone to enjoy, if you wish to limit rock then are you not limiting all kinds of access?

[Joseph Healy]

"...we can certianly accept the differences in points of view about putting a 3/8 hole in a rock somewhere."

I would be able to accept the differences in points of view except that 3/8 holes in rocks is now becoming and expectation and a "right" to an increasing percentage of climbers with an attending tide of such holes appearing on rocks everywhere that government intervention doesn't prevent it.

All the ancillary issues around impact (trails, environment, etc.) are largely governed by the size of the population using a resource - limit bolting and you will limit the impact, as far fewer people will use a given resource.

[Chris Simmons]

Joseph-
I'm in the "leave it be" catagory. I believe the FA team made a good-faith effort to ensure their actions were outside the boundaries of the wilderness area, and were simply lead astray by a bad USGS map. I've climbed the route and think its a quality piece of work. The fact that it took them years (literally) to put the route up should indicate that the area is unlikely to turn into a popular sport climbing area. The route is unique, and the press it has received, both good and bad, is likely to dissuade others from attempting to mimick it.
I just got home from a week-long trip. Let me get horizontal for a bit and I'll come back and revisit this thread...
Chris

[Chris Simmons]

MattP-
I'm confused about the tactics used to establish IB. Joseph and I have been talking on multiple forums, and somehow (I haven't researched where or by whom) IB started to be described as "rap bolted" But to rap-bolt, you must first reach the top, right? There is not an easy line to the summit of the West Peak of Mt. Garfield, so I'm doubting that they actually carried all the hardware up to the summit and just rapped down. Also, some of the bolts and anchors have a definite "ground-up" stance to them, i.e. not perfectly in line with the route of ascent, but excellent if you didn't know exactly where you were going or if you had to hang by a hook while you were drilling. Do you know if IB was established ground-up, rap-down, or a mix of the two?
Chris

[Matt Perkins]

I don't know in any great detail how they did it, Chris, but you are right they didn't just carry everything up to the top and work their way down. It is complicated terrain and they worked on it in pieces; I wouldn't be surprised if they used different tactics here and there.

[Chris Simmons]

Joseph and I have been discussing this at Supertopos - in fact we've been dominating the conversation - but Pope just posted this:

"MtnFreak, I don't belong to the WCC precisely because of their failure to oppose projects such as Infinite Bliss (and climbs at Dishman where holds were bolted to the cliff). I don't belong to WCC because some of this group's organizers have employed power drills in designated wilderness area around Darrington.

You suggest that nobody was ever interested in shutting climbers out of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. However, Matt Perkins called me and revealed that as a result of the Infinite Bliss controvery and illegal applications of bolting around Darrington, the under-staffed NFS would very likely respond by gating access to Darrington rock climbing. He seemed completely distressed and pleaded with me to cease vocalizing my opposition to Infinite Bliss.

True, the ALPS group is probably not concerned with the nuances of how bolts are placed, but in the words of Matt Perkins, bolts drilled illegally give them the leverage they need to accomplish their ultimate goal, to restrict access to climbers."

Matt, is there any truth to Pope's claims? Did the ALPS group want to ban climbers - is there talk of a gate being built to block access to the rock in Darrington?

Chris

[Matt Perkins]

As far as I know, there is no current discussion that the Forest Service intends to close any climbing area in Washington. I know of no discussion that they were ever considering closing Darrington for any reason other than a lack of funding for roadway construction. A few years back, the District Ranger in fact told me that they viewed us as a "good" user group in that they had never had any police calls, no rescues, nor any other significant problem associated with climbing in the Darrington area. I believe that theft of Cedar trees and dumping of trash have been a bigger concerns for them on the Clear Creek road.

Some climbers have at times voiced the opinion that they would rather see entire crags or climbing areas closed than to allow some method of climbing or crag development they feel is inappropriate.

[DCramer]

Chris –

I do not speak for the WCC but I can tell you that my first reaction when hearing of the route was a direct and unequivocal statement to Matt that the route should be removed. (Ok I was perhaps a bit less delicate in person and with a beer in my hand) After learning more of the situation I changed my mind on the matter. The WCC certainly doesn’t condone the use of power drills within wilderness borders. One of my WCC projects for the next few months is to develop a resource list for climbers so that they can more easily determine whether a cliff is within wilderness boundaries.

The WCC has encouraged climbers to attend meetings specifically designed to allow any interested climbers a chance to voice their opinion and to become actively involved in creating the WCC. There was a great deal of reticence to make formal proclamations regarding policy for several reasons. The most important reason was that the initial steering body, of which I was not a part, wanted Washington climbers to create the organization. Most of those complaining about the WCC on the internet never came to a meeting and thus never attempted to join in the process.

[Matt Perkins]

Some clarification regarding the conservation community's stance: the guy from ALPS that we met with a year an a half ago said that they were concerned with ALL types of concentrated recreational use - including fishing, hunting, and just plain hiking if these activities may have a significant impact. A friend of mine who has been involved with another related organization, the North Cascades Conservation Council, has told me that a substantial portion of their membership is generally against all recreational access to wilderness and would prefer to see the North Cascades tightly managed as a preserve with only very limited and vastly reduced opportunities for recreational use. Many of their newsletters support such a view.

By the way, there is a significant amount of misinformation in this thread and that one you refer to on Supertopo: For example - ALPS has actually ENDORSED the road widening/straightening/paving in the Middle Fork and the construction of a campground virtually at the foot of Mount Garfield. It was a compromise position, for sure, and in exchange they are "winning" an agreement to gate the road beyond Mt. Garfield, but they in no way have resisted that construction.

Another example of misinformation in the Supertopo discussion: the WCC has not "agreed" to any compromise maintaining bolted on holds at Dishman Rocks. The WCC encouraged Spokane area climbers to fashion their own compromise, and that compromise specifically disallowed the bolted holds as far as I recall. Any WCC "agreement" would be irrelevant anyway -- it is the local Spokane area climbers that have to figure out how to maintain their crag and get along with each other and the WCC is not a police force or crag maintenance organization except that, perhaps, we might try to encourage climbers do some trash clean ups or erosion control or something like that once in a while, or oganize projects like that in order to encourage climbers to take more responsibility for where we climb.

[Andy Fitz]

My two cents on the misinformation issues:

I was directly involved in working with Spokane climbers on "both sides" in drafting the Dishman resolution letter. The points in the letter were developed through working with them, not through any WCC agenda. The letter includes an express statement that artificial holds are not appropriate at Dishman and should be removed. The holds, in fact, are gone. There is a statement that already-drilled pockets should be left alone. This wasn't intended to condone the pockets. Rather, it recognized that the rock had already been altered, that plugging the pockets with grout or epoxy had a greater visual impact than leaving them alone, and that it was time to stop the conflict. (Let me add that having been to the crag, I can say that drilled pockets are not ubiquitous at Dishman.)

I was also one of the "founding members" involved in how the WCC approached Infinite Bliss (and no, I've never placed a bolt in a Wilderness Area!). IB was one of the precipitating factors in the WCC organizing. Our main focus was to avoid an access crisis with regional (or even national) reprecussions. Darryl's point, too, about steering a middle course to even have a voice is correct. Early on, it became apparent (at least in our perception) that the Forest Service wasn't so much concerned about IB as it was the specter of other routes following in its place. In that vein, we worked to educate the first ascentionists and we reached out to other climbers active in developing routes. Through information such as the climbing area profiles, we have since sought to educate climbers about the relevant rules and access considerations at crags around the state. This includes identifying the value (reflected in an enforceable climbing management plan) that the River Face of Beacon Rock remain "traditional." For my own part, I support this value just as much as the ability to place a bolt somewhere else.

[Chris Simmons]

Right on. Thank you to all three for clarifying things for me - this has been VERY educational. Matt, especially thank you for the points you mentioned from the Supertopo thread. As I mentioned before I'm extremely glad that Joseph is a member of the WCC, and I think we can only benefit by getting as many climbers - even those with ethical stances on the far sides of the pendulum - to join and speak up.
Cheers.
Chris

[Matt Perkins]

I agree, Chris. The WCC will only be able to accomplish its mission if a large number of climbers want it to succeed and it will be important to include climbers of all persuasion -- especially those who care about climbing enough to join these discussions -- but other more modest or retiring climbers as well.

[Andy Fitz]

A couple thoughts to add to my post above:

The resolution at Dishman, including each of the points of agreement, was formally presented to the Board of Directors of the Hutchinson Irrigation District, which owns most of the crag (including the routes in controversy). The Board--which was fully aware of the controversy--was satisfied and appreciated the resolution. So, for all the players immediately involved (including the crag owner), the controversy has been put to bed at Dishman. The issues are resolved unless other climbers choose to keep them alive. If that's the case, though, it should at least be based on good information.

The same can be said for Infinite Bliss. The Forest Service, which is fully aware of the route, decided to let the route remain. In my opinion, our focus should shift to preventing similar issues in the future. Continued talk of chopping the route (which I realize hasn't been raised here, but continues to pop up in other forums) is not in the name of preserving access.

[Joseph Healy]

My two cents on the misinformation issues:

First let me say that I certainly appreciate all you personal and AF efforts on behalf of climbers and those of us at Beacon Rock in particular. But with regards to "misinformation issues" let me be clear as well as my statements were not "misinformation" (and my apologies for taking a bit to get back to this thread).

Dishman: Yes, the ultimate resolution was as you describe and on my last visit the second cleanup appears to be holding though markings were still clearly evident. But on the way to that ultimate resolution there was discussion on a "compromise" resolution that would have left bolted on holds intact. My comment was in regards to both that original possibility and if that behavior should resurface. My point being that we as a community and AF shouldn't operate on an 'Access at any price' basis - that sometimes we should simply stand up and vocally advocate closing an area if "climbers" refuse to cease such vandalous activities.

Infinite Bliss: Well, in this case there are access politics and then there are climbing ethics and self-respect as a community. We'll simply have to disagree on this one because my personal belief is that if it remains it will get climbed, and it will definitely lead to more of the same sooner or later - it's just a matter of time. Rather than even going down the road of a lot of formal politics I think climbers as a community should have removed it on first discovery. I still believe it should be summarily removed and that belief has nothing to do with access politics or its GPS coordinates, but rather just by virtue of the fact that it is a wholly inappropriate fabrication regardless of whether is a mile one side of some "don't bolt" political boundary or another. I view it as a matter of self-respect [as a community] and respect for alpine environs and the opportunities they provide.

[Matt Perkins]

I was not involved in all of the discussion, Joseph, but there never was any WCC endorsement of any bolted-on holds. Our position was, and remains, that climbers in the Spokane area need to figure out how they want to climb and get along with each other or crags may be closed.

I'm not sure what you mean by "at any cost," but I assume this refers to some kind of ultimatum position where people make statements about "zero tolerance" and such. As far as the Dishman business and other conflicts over climbing development in Washington, I may be wrong but I don't think the Access Fund, Washington Climbers Coalition or really anybody else has ever said they promote "access at any cost." In both the Dishman and Inifinite Bliss discussions these organizations have been saying “as climbers’ organizations, we support climbing -- lets find solutions so that we can keep climbing areas open."

By contrast, we have seen where climbers unhappy with bolting or chipping or whatever have taken the position that they would rather see climbing areas permanently closed then to allow offensive routes to remain. While I do not contest the sincerity of those who feel that this or that transgression is beyond tolerable (and I, personally, may even agree as to some of these transgressions), I think these climbers at least sometimes would cut off our nose to spite our face, and theirs would appear to me to be an “at any cost” kind of stance -- an ultimatum.

As far as Infinite Bliss, you seem to have suggested that the WCC should take on the role of a climbing style police force. Whether you believe that the mere existence of Infinite Bliss will feed a proliferation of similar climbs elsewhere or not, or whether you think the climb is any good or not, I believe that we would severely weaken our ability to pursue our primary mission if the WCC appointed ourselves to be the climbing police.

[Andy Fitz]

[QUOTE=Joseph Healy][O]n the way to that ultimate resolution there was discussion on a "compromise" resolution that would have left bolted on holds intact. [QUOTE=Joseph Healy]

Just to be clear, neither I nor any other WCC person I'm aware of were ever a part of such "discussion." I went to a public meeting in Spokane prepared to say that the bolted on holds needed to go. Instead, I kept my mouth shut when the discussion at the meeting focused instead on issues of land ownership and organizing a trash cleanup, with the contentious issues left for later resolution. Since it appeared there was going to be an effort among Spokane folks to work things out over time (and I felt that under any realistic "compromise," the holds would go), I didn't feel comfortable inserting myself at that time. It was a judgment call based on the circumstances.

These are hard issues and this is a good discussion. I've placed a fair number of bolts myself, which maybe affects my credibility. I've also said a number of times, however, that there are a good share of stupid bolted routes I'd love to erase if I were king. They offend my sensibilities as a climber and a lover of nature. My sense is that most of the folks involved with the WCC feel the same way, at least to some degree. But when we leave the easy issues such as bolted on holds and move to issues of bolting generally, or whether the specific bolts on a specific climb are warranted, there's a hell of a lot of subjectiveness involved.

[Joseph Healy]

Matt,

With regards to "access at any price" - by that I mean that if we as a community will tolerate any and all vandalous transgressions then we are as complicit as the vandals themselves. If what you or others are saying is there are simply no transgressions bad enough to warrant a response from us as community to vocally advocate for closure or to physically remove a route - then, by any standard I can think of, that is the very definition of "access at any price".

Now, while I can certainly empathize with a [political] organization not wanting the designation of "rock police", what organization or mechanism do we as a community of climbers have to police ourselves? If the answer is no organization will or should, and that no individual will or should, then who are we and what do we stand for? It's hard for me to imagine vandalous actions more detrimental to our collective community in a world of competing interests than the transgressions at Dishman and IB? Are you and Andy saying that every transgression should and must be tolerated? That our collective implicit and tacit approval of IB will lead to no further examples of the same? If so, then I both disagree wholeheartedly and believe that such transgressions [politically] swept under the carpet will absolutely come back and bite us on the collective ass sooner or later.

To some extent this is the paradox and the dilemna we face - but I very much believe doing nothing simply breeds both more Dishman/IB's and more Ken Nichols as opposite sides of the same problem that is better dealt with directly as a community before outside groups and agencies become involved and before conditions spiral out of control or proliferate. But your implied question remains and is valid: who is to do the policing? Surely there is a more effective middle ground than no one and Ken...

[Matt Perkins]

Again, Joseph, with all due respect I think you have mis-characterized or misunderstood the situation. Climbers in general and climbers organizations like the Access Fund or the WCC have not "simply tolerated" these transgressions nor have we swept them under the rug. As individuals and as members of these organizations, we have discussed the Infinite Bliss and Dishman issues in public forums and media; we've talked with the land owners or land managers about them; and we've drawn out the climbers responsible for the practices which created the problem. It is incorrect to say that there has been any coordinated effort to tolerate or sweep these issues under the rug.

Similarly, you misunderstand or misrepresent Andy and me when you say we appear to suggest that there can be no case serious enough to warrant calling for the removal of a route or the closure of a climbing area; nobody has said this. I do believe, however, that it should be a last resort to conclude that a problem is so intractable that we must give up and ask a property owner or government land manager to close a climbing area.

Note: bolts and holds at Dishman were removed and, in fact, Andy has said he supports that action. I do as well -- all the more so because, in the aftermath, climbers there appear to have been able to fashion an agreement that they can live with.

Regarding Infinite Bliss, it is incorrect to say that anybody is implying their approval of Infinite Bliss if they fail to remove it or call for it to be removed. Certainly some DO approve of the route; others feel that, at this point, we stand more to lose than to gain through a crowbar expedition. You apparently disagree.

You note a complex and ongoing issue when you ask how we might endeavor to police ourselves as a user group. Climbers have been struggling with this since about 1960. As I understand you, you are suggesting that we should seek some broader or more common vision regarding the policing of development or maintenance practices than we now have. In general terms, I agree. As to specifics, we may have different ideas here.

I believe that, however we try to discuss these issues, we should avoid inflammatory rhetoric and divisive tactics. Otherwise I fear we may feed the extremism which you describe as Dishman/IB vs Ken Nichols. Do you agree?

[Joseph Healy]

Climbers in general and climbers organizations like the Access Fund or the WCC have not "simply tolerated" these transgressions nor have we swept them under the rug. As individuals and as members of these organizations, we have discussed the Infinite Bliss and Dishman issues in public forums and media; we've talked with the land owners or land managers about them; and we've drawn out the climbers responsible for the practices which created the problem.

Matt, in the Dishman case I believe the right thing was accomplished after some initial wobbling statements on RC.com. In the case of IB, with all due respect to both of you and all the work that went into it, the net result I can only characterize as "swept under the rug". The fact that it wasn't summarily removed by some organized body in the community before other agencies got involved, I personally regard as a fairly grevious collective failure to act decisively and responsibly and still regard it as such.

Similarly, you misunderstand or misrepresent Andy and me when you say we appear to suggest that there can be no case serious enough to warrant calling for the removal of a route or the closure of a climbing area; nobody has said this. I do believe, however, that it should be a last resort to conclude that a problem is so intractable that we must give up and ask a property owner or government land manager to close a climbing area.

If IB does not qualify as the perfect example of such a route I cannot imagine what route would. I also agree that advocating closure should be a stance of last resort, but if the Dishman problem persisted or reoccured that would also constitute just such a situation the warranted such extreme measures.

Regarding Infinite Bliss, it is incorrect to say that anybody is implying their approval of Infinite Bliss if they fail to remove it or call for it to be removed. Certainly some DO approve of the route; others feel that, at this point, we stand more to lose than to gain through a crowbar expedition. You apparently disagree.

We will have to completely disagree on this point - you are in fact granting it implicit and tacit organizational approval by not vocally advocating its removal and our inaction on IB will make us complicit in the next one that appears as well. We stand to loose far more in allowing this route to remain than by its removal.

You note a complex and ongoing issue when you ask how we might endeavor to police ourselves as a user group. Climbers have been struggling with this since about 1960. As I understand you, you are suggesting that we should seek some broader or more common vision regarding the policing of development or maintenance practices than we now have. In general terms, I agree. As to specifics, we may have different ideas here.

No doubt, but my sense of it is that our organizations are typically conflicted to the point of being restrained to inaction beyond words when it comes to an outright removal of a route such as IB. That in of itself leads to more Ken Nichols. It is certainly better to remove transgressions as a group than to do it as an individual - but when [institutional, organizational, or political] paralysis sets in Kens happen.

I believe that, however we try to discuss these issues, we should avoid inflammatory rhetoric and divisive tactics. Otherwise I fear we may feed the extremism which you describe as Dishman/IB vs Ken Nichols. Do you agree?

Inflammatory rhetoric is the "ear of the behearer" as it were and I don't consider my arguments inflammatory. As for divisive tactics, that's the issue at hand - when collective inaction is as divisive as individual action.

[Joseph Healy]

On the way to that ultimate resolution there was discussion on a "compromise" resolution that would have left bolted on holds intact.

Just to be clear, neither I nor any other WCC person I'm aware of were ever a part of such "discussion." .
Andy, not by you, but AF comments were made on RC.com in the dishman thread that did essentially amounted to such a suggestion if only briefly. I was pretty incensed about it at the time and made my views known in that thread which I see is no longer intact in its final state on RC.

In fact it was those exact comments on that thread/incident/discussion that eventually incited my involvement at Beacon.

[Tom Lewis]

Inflammatory rhetoric is the "ear of the behearer" as it were and I don't consider my arguments inflammatory.

As an observer of this discussion, I read your statements as "My way or the highway." Your arguments don't encourage discussion.

[Joseph Healy]

As an observer of this discussion, I read your statements as "My way or the highway." Your arguments don't encourage discussion.

Well, I personally find the route a complete affront, a long term threat to alpine access, and a representative icon of the [long term] ethical civil war that dawned with the ready availability of cheap powerdrills. I'm happy to discuss the appropriateness of the response, but after three decades of climbing and no shortage of my own FA's you are right that no one is going to convince me there is something wrong with my either my perceptions of the climb itself or my opinion of the impact of collective inaction on this issue. I make no apologies for either; and you may be happy with the outcome, I simply find it unacceptable - if that's imflammatory, so be it. Again, and with all due respect to everyone that got involved with the politics and the current resolution, I don't believe the route should have existed long enough to become a political issue. Again, when do we as community do more than talk or is it only bolts coming out that is so objectionable - not bolts going in. If so, then standby when the next IB happens as the volume will be going up significantly.