I know this area sees considerable traffic, nonetheless I think it takes away from the setting to have large groups of humans in wilderness like the Missions. I do think that it is a high impact to hold a group activity in an area like this....to other humans and the other living things in the mountains.
Saintgrizzly - Dec 17, 2008 10:15 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: Too many people
Yeah, it was smug. Easy to do when dealing with statements like yours. And you weren't supposed to be impressed.
More to the point, what "setting" are you speaking of? A hypothetical wilderness with no one there? The group(s) of people already there? Possibly one or two folks in the solitude of wilderness, angry when others have the same love of nature, and intrude on their personal domain? I do understand the problems of wilderness being "loved to death," and if I lived in the greater Yellowstone area, and was daily faced with that incomparably more humanity than in the Missions, might have an even stronger perspective. But for what it's worth, the GMS consciously limits the size of its outings for the expressed reason of avoiding, as much as possible, any harm to the environment. For example, the club regularly (and often) communicates with GNP officials as to any environmental concerns to be encountered, or to avoid creating any such concerns. Tim and I feel our party was too large (which in this case was the maximum allowable GMS size) for a variety of reasons, but in this instance the least of those reasons has to do with impact on the environment and/or others in the area--with whom we had cordial conversation(s). For us, it was a safety issue. Further outings on Gray Wolf will not have so many in the party.
To a certain extent I agree with you Vernon, however, I do not think the size of the group became a problem until we headed into unknown terrain. I sincerely believe that we could have retraced the ascent route with no worries, been down in good time and congratulating each other on a fine day. Do I want to go up Gray Wolf with 12 people again?.....depends on who is in the group...I can think of 11 ladies I would like to show this route to. Would I descend the Maverick Couloir with more than 2 people?...not on your life!
Even though our group had 12, there was not an adverse impact on the terrain. In fact, the area was cleaner after we left, for I picked up litter dropped by other careless hikers. Tribal regulations put maximum group size at 15, about the size of an active Boy Scout Troup.
So to say that the group size was the problem is myopic, 4 people descending that couloir would have been exposed to the same hazard, we just increased the factor.
Tim, I'm not sure where "myopic" fits in (although, if I can be "smug," I guess your characterization is just as deserving), but didn't we say the same thing? And isn't "...we just increased the [hazard] factor," a safety issue? The problem may be that I erroneously wrote, "For us, it was a safety issue," rather than something along the lines of, "For us, when our large party entered the descent couloir, it became a safety issue," which is what I meant. I think we're going in circles, in complete agreement.
—Vernon
The myopic comment was meant for NoSubba. For him the root problem was group size, not discipline.
As for the increased factor, ...each person had the same chance of knocking loose a rock, or slipping and falling as the next, so it stands to reason that we only increased the factor by putting more people in that situation. 4 people descending that couloir is just as dangerous as 12, and from a route finding perspective, bottlenecks should be avoided when possible. How is that for circular logic?
"Myopic Vernon" says...oops. Sorry for the mis-read.
Question, though: It seems to me that the more people in a couloir the greater the possibility of several individuals being affected by falling objects. Such as a boulder hitting more than one person, or people running into each other while moving rapidly to avoid an oncoming object, or the fact that—to use our party size as an example—12 individuals descending a couloir simply have a mathematically greater chance of things going wrong, with that "wrongness" then heading rapidly down onto more folks below than would be in a party of 4. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it doesn't seem logical that 4 people descending is just as dangerous as 12. (Not to mention that 12 people descending, if done as safely as possible, is a great deal more time consuming.)
The "odds" will remain the same statistically speaking. Some of the other things you mention are the increase in factor that I spoke of. Lets say for example, 20 parties of 4 descend the Maverick Couloir, and 1 group has an accident, then the odds are 20:1 that your group of 4 will not have an accident. If one person in that affected party gets injured then the odds are 80:1 that you will not get injured. If you put a group of 12 into that same descent then the odds remain the same because each person still has an 80:1 chance of not to getting hurt.
Looked at a bit differently, the likely hood of the 4th climber in a group of 4 knocking down a rock is the same as the 4th climber in a group of 12 and the results are the same. The difference now is that there are 3 groups of 4 descending at the same time, but the likely hood of the 4th climber in each group of 4 loosening a rock remains the same. The increase in factor is that more people are exposed to the falling rock if the 4th person in the last group loosens the rock. Since it is practically impossible to calculate where a rock will bounce once it has started rolling, each climber below shares the same chance of getting hit by that rock. But really, looked at in that light should the 4th person in the lead group be any less careful than the 4th person in the last group?
The onus is on the trailing climbers to descend extra carefully to avoid the 1 in 80 chance, thus taking extra time. This statistical model plays out with each of the hazards we were exposed to [slipping and falling, or sliding on snow]. Statistics almost seem to defy logic some times, but rarely mislead. The frustrating thing to me is that 11 people were exposed to that chance rather than none.
Cheers;
Tim
I see your point, and yet in this world of circular logic I don't see your point. We'll have to discuss over coffee (soon), or this column could develop a life of its own....
Texascanyons - Feb 17, 2009 7:20 pm - Hasn't voted
Some thoughts
Saint Grizzly, thanks for your candid report. I too think you’re being unnecessarily hard on yourself.
Your trip sounds like Into Thin Air Lite. Thankfully everyone made it down safely. I know both Maverick and one of the other climbers who was there that day. I briefly considered going myself; from all accounts I’m glad I didn’t!
Obviously, the disputes and the fragmentation of the party are the kinds of things that happen when people get onto terrain or into conditions in which they aren’t comfortable. In this case it sounds as though the ultimate cause may have been that the ascent was mis-rated in the club bulletin that advertised the climb. Reading your trip report and hearing the accounts of those who were there, the ascent sounds like Class 3 with one Class 5 step (and maybe a bit of Class 4). As someone who has had no climbing instruction, that would have been enough to deter me.
Maverick told me that he was freaked out on that step. He said that if anyone had fallen they would have died. He did not want to descend it. I would have turned around at the base of it -- his mistake, IMO, was that he himself didn’t.
Why he chose to continue, why he opted not only to risk the pitch, but to subvert the unity of the party, usurp your leadership, and gamble on what he didn’t know, he did not say.
Others however must have been sufficiently unnerved by the thought of downclimbing that pitch, to follow him down an unknown route. Did anyone express such reservations on the way up? Did any vote, at the summit, for descending the original route as planned?
The club needs to make sure that each climb is accurately rated in advance, so participants can know what to expect, and make their go/no-go decisions at home instead of on the mountain.
You were with a party of self-determining adults -- I doubt that, in the circumstances, you could have made things turn out differently.
Thanks for commenting on this article. From my understanding of the GMS rating system, I will dispute your assertion that the climb was mis-represented. We listed it as Class [3] Difficult.
High angle scrambling, moderate cliffs, considerable exertion. Rope might be necessary for beginners. Since we screened the people who climbed that day and there was only one beginner, and the rest were seasoned GMS members, it was determined no rope was necessary. Since there were several rest stops on the high angle cliff area, we were able to spot everyone as they progressed, no one would have fallen more that a few feet before coming to a relatively flat landing. Everyone [except for me] would have had a spot for the down climb too.
The comments that I heard from the group were that Gray Wolf was one of the best routes they had ever done, yes it is challenging, but it was not put forth as a walk up, or even an easy scramble.
As a leader, I have never put forth a vote on route choices, but I have changed routes and even abandoned routes because some member was not comfortable with the climbing. In this case nobody came forth to Vernon or I with any indication they were uncomfortable with our chosen route.
It is my understanding that Maverick likes to find alternate descent routes, and has done this on other occasions , if he wants to justify his actions by saying that the route was too scary, and then descending into the unknown that is his business. In my honest opinion, down climbing into a blind couloir that you have not ascended is one of the most irrational choices that one can make. The rest of us would have much rather not had to follow him.
One other thing I would like to point out, there were no disputes, the majority of the group continued to work together to help each other out. The fragmentation of the group occurred because Maverick and a few others did not stick around at the bottom of the couloir to make sure that the rest of us made it out safely. As I mentioned in the article, 3 or 4 fellows [who did make sure everyone got out safely] asked for and were granted permission to forge ahead on the remainder of the descent.
Tim's response to your post, Texascanyons, just about covers it all—I don't have much to add. The downclimb was most unfortunate, because it gives a sour impression to what was actually a very nice day on a great mountain. Several that were along have since let me know that Gray Wolf was among the best climbs of the summer for them!
The climb has been discussed extensively with Jim Schroeder (President of GMS), Larry Hiller (also on the climb), and Brian Kennedy (in charge of putting together the "Journal"), and there is going to be an article on "Gray Wolf - Lessons Learned" in this year's edition. No finger-pointing in the article, just observations on what went wrong, and may be of benefit to the collective GMS experience.
I agree with Tim completely on the issue where Maverick feared downclimbing the crux, and that a fall would have resulted in death. Not so! It was, indeed, difficult-enough to require concentration, and individuals helping each other, but I was surprised to hear of Maverick's fear, as that was not expressed to either Tim or myself during the actual outing. Tim and I did a great deal of conversing and studying before posting the climb rating in last year's Journal, and post-climb have received agreement from experienced GMS-ers on the climb that our rating was indeed okay.
One suggestion coming to light after the climb is that I did not introduce Tim as the official "climb leader" during the day. All communication in the Journal had been directed at and from myself, and even though Tim was officially listed as co-coordinator, it was an understandable assumption that I would lead the way up, so when Tim took the lead, it was a bit confusing. That lack of communication won't happen again. (We're leading another climb in the Missions this summer, but guess I shouldn't state the mountain here, until the Journal comes out.)
Thanks so much for your comments!!!!
One last thing: who are you? I'm not placing "Texascanyons" as someone I've communicated with in the past. Have we been on GMS outings together? I don't expect you to post your name here, but send me a PM or email if you wish....
Fred Spicker - Feb 20, 2009 10:11 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Some thoughts
Section description in the trip report:
"The second difficulty, just a short scramble above our lunch saddle, is a near-vertical 75' section of blocky climbing in the 5.2 range. The holds for hands and feet are all there but not always obvious, especially to the less experienced climber."
And – "I gave a short safety talk and led the way up this wonderfully exposed pitch."
In a photo caption the 5.2 step is described as "awkward".
So apparently we are talking about awkward, exposed 5.2.
The definition of Class 5 is that it is belayed climbing with the leader placing intermediate protection. This also matches the GMS classification.
Class 3 - especially Glacier Park Class 3 - is scrambling - the first stages of using one's hands and usually involving very little exposure or danger of serious injury in a fall.
There is a huge difference between Class 5.2 and Class 3. In fact, by stating that this section is 5.2, you are not even presenting the possibility that is might be Class 4 – a 5.2 is pretty definite rating indicating that the person doing so is sure that it is well within the Class 5 designation.
I know very few climbers who would confidently downclimb an exposed awkward 5.2 pitch without a belay. Certainly inexperienced climbers would want a rope both up and down.
So, which is correct – the trip report or the Class 3 rating?
Well Fred;
I was wondering if you were going to chime in on this discussion.
I had heard that you felt the climb had been mis-represented in the GMS Journal.
I will have to reiterate my earlier response that according to the 2008 GMS Journal, "Class III (3) Difficult High angle scrambling, moderate cliffs, considerable exertion. Rope might be necessary for beginners"., in my opinion, is the best classification for this climb. "Class IV (4) Very Difficult Higher angle cliffs, increased exposure. Belaying rope required.", is overplaying the difficulty of the step up out of the saddle. Your assertion that "especially Glacier Park Class 3-is scrambling-the first stages of using one`s hands and usually involving very little exposure or danger of serious injury in a fall." is an incorrect interpretation of the 2008 GMS Climb Classification System. You are describing a class II (2) Moderate.
I believe the error in your assessment of the rating I gave the pitch is that the GMS uses its own rating system, and does not allow for a YDS rating. I view the GMS system as more closely resembling the "Grade" type of rating system, than the "Class" rating system that we find defined in Freedom of the Hills. I graded the pitch based on the hardest move which is a relatively easy mantle. In my opinion if a person can climb a steep ladder then he can climb a low 5. Some beginners might want a belay, but none in the group that we climbed with that day stated they were uncomfortable with the pitch.
Guide book ratings and trip prospectus ratings are by nature ambiguous, and should always be looked on with a jaded eye. As Vernon interviewed the people who were interested in this climb, he made it known that there was a steep section of climbing. This climb was advertised for strong intermediate climbers in good shape. In my opinion anybody fitting that description should be able to manage the route easily. The one and only beginner was a strapping young man of very athletic build, and he had absolutely no difficulty on the disputed section of this climb.
Perhaps you should climb the route and see if you think it requires a belay. I only mention this because you seem to be taking the position that every [even low] 5th class [yds] pitch should be belayed with the leader placing protection. And further that every climb that has a low 5th class move on it should be a class 4 or better. I certainly do not feel that is necessary, or that it would necessarily accurately represent the overall difficulty of a route.
You also seem to be picking apart the words I used to describe the pitch as a way to play "gottcha", I can assure you I could just as easily have written a very bland description of this route. But that is not how I live or climb.
So in my opinion both the trip report and the GMS Class III(3) rating are correct.
Fred Spicker - Feb 21, 2009 9:26 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Some thoughts
You are correct on at least one point, I think of Glacier Park Class 3 as originally defined by Edwards – though I really don't see that much difference when you look at the verbal descriptions.
Edwards 3:
"Moderate. Small cliffs that may be difficult and steep scree requiring exertion. Little danger of physical injury if careful."
New GMS 3:
Difficult "High angle scrambling, moderate cliffs, considerable exertion. A rope might be necessary for beginners."
GMS does give the option to include a most difficult pitch rating as shown in their example rating on the page:
Going-to-the-Sun Mountain (9,642 feet): West Face Route
Rating: III (4) M M
This route will have an overall rating of Class III with the most difficult pitch being Class 4, a Medium round trip distance and a Medium elevation gain. Each section of this rating system is described below.
Based on this and the description that you give in this article perhaps this route should have been rated III (5).
Based on the description you have written in the article and what Vernon described to me along with what you contend now, I think that your article misrepresents the climb. Particularly:
"a near-vertical 75' section of blocky climbing in the 5.2 range."
This implies 75 feet of Class 5 climbing – not one little move. And you go on to call it "wonderfully exposed" which would cause most people to think that a belaying would be appropriate.
My contention regarding Class 5 is that if the average person will climb the pitch unbelayed then it isn't Class 5.
I do not contend that every climb that has a low Class 5 move should be rated Class 4 or better.
Fred;
You seem to be arguing in circles, one minute contending I underrated the climb, and lured unsuspecting people into danger, then ending by saying I overrated the climb.
I think "High Angle" and "Near Vertical" can mean the same thing.
I also think "Moderate Cliffs" and "Blocky Climbing" can mean the same thing. I think a mantle move is not necessarily difficult, but also not common knowledge among non-climbers, thus it is a learned climbing move. As such it becomes a technique, and hence above a class 4 move. That is why I rated the pitch by its hardest move, an easy if awkward 5.2. It is common practice to rate a pitch by its hardest move, though the entire pitch is not necessarily sustained at that level.
My descriptions in the trip report were designed to convey to the reader that this is not an easy walk up, or even necessarily an easy scramble, but for a competent mountaineer, it is not overly difficult, and does not require a belay. The pitch does give a sense of exposure, because it goes above the cliff cuts of the Gray Wolf Glacier. Please remember we were not taking a bunch of beginners up this climb, and just as a point of reference, GMS member and well respected climber Larry H. agreed with the rating.
You can stick to your guns if you like, but I will stick to mine also.
If you think I have done a disservice to the GMS community, or to this SP community, then so be it. If you want to critique my work and climbing from a computer screen, then so be it. I have freely admitted that I have made mistakes, I just do not think that they were in the classification listed in the Journal, particularly since trip and climbing details are always discussed with the coordinators prior to signing up for a climb.
Fred Spicker - Mar 2, 2009 12:04 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Some thoughts
The GMS rating system was introduced in the 1988 Journal. Along with the explanation of the system is a list of 32 rated climbs as examples.
The rating system is unchanged since its introduction. Though, for a brief time in the mid-90s, the option of adding YDS Class 5 ratings (5.0 – 5.10) was included.
I have compared the routes that are included on the GMS list which are also included in the Edwards Guide. The rating numbers are the same. Routes rated in the Edwards guide as Class 3 are rated by GMS as III(3). Routes that Edwards calls Class 3 with some Class 4 are rated by GMS as III(4).
An exception is the ER of Cannon which GMS calls III(3) and Edwards says Class 3 with possibly one Class 4 pitch.
What is different is the written description of the Classes 2, 3, & 4.
See the Edwards Guide and GMS website for complete written descriptions.
Edwards Class 1 – Very Easy GMS Class 1 - Easy
Edwards Class 2 - Easy GMS Class 2 – Moderate
Edwards Class 3 – Moderate GMS Class 3 – Difficult
Edwards Class 4 – Difficult GMS Class 4 – Very Difficult
Edwards Class 5 – Severe GMS Class 5 – Severe
Interestingly, Edwards does not recommend a rope for Class 3 while GMS states that a rope might be necessary for beginners.
Note again however, that the ratings given to the same routes have the same numbers. An Edwards Class 3 is also a GMS Class 3.
Why routes are described as harder by the GMS is not explained, but I would not be surprised to find out that a lawyer was involved.
The example GMS III(3) routes are:
Gould WS
Jackson NER
Pollock EC
Clements WR
Rising Wolf SF
Red SF
Cannon ER
Grinnell SWT (Via Overlook Rte.)
Norris SER (Via Triple Divide Peak)
The example GMS III(4) routes are:
Gould NR (Via Gem Glacier)
Going to the Sun WF
Reynolds EC
Cleveland WF
Triple Divide EF (direct)
Allen NR (Snow Moon Basin)
Bearhat NF
Merritt NF
Siyeh SF (Note Edwards calls this 2 & 3 with possible 4)
Thanks Fred for your detailed analysis of GMS and Edwards rating criterion. I think the similarities are remarkable. As I have not climbed in GNP, I have no real frame of reference as to the difficulties of the named peaks and ratings, and I will thus defer to Vernon regarding the relativity of comparison to Gray Wolf. I will however remark about Larry H.s` comment; the rock quality of Gray Wolf is vastly superior to that found in Glacier National Park.
I was under the impression that the GMS rating system was peculiar to GNP, is this a correct assumption? Perhaps the crux of this issue lies in my extrapolation of GMS ratings, as relates to other mountain ranges.
Texascanyons - Feb 17, 2009 7:21 pm - Hasn't voted
Oops
You're T Sharp, not Saint Grizzly -- sorry about that!
5.2, high exposure, several areas where a fall would be fatal or near fatal
I just climbed Grey Wolf for the first time yesterday. I was certainly "on route" the whole way. the notch section has probably a thousand feet of air to the north and to the south in most places it is too steep to stop a falling climber form bouncing and tumbling hundreds of feet and probably injuring themselves to the point of not being able to hike out.
The initial descent into the notch involves a V0 or 5.2 move over the steep gully and the initial ascent from the notch has perhaps 35 feet of ledgey 5.2 climbing broken into a few parts, several easy mantels, and high steps. the subsequent zig zag is relitively safe and easy. on this first section if a climber peeled backwards here they would most likely careen off into the abyss. this can most certainly be climbed safely by an experienced climber but we are all lying to ourselves if you call it 5.2 and then say there is no possibility of a death fall. grade it with whatever system you like but if you fall 12 feel in an uncontrolled manner onto a ledge the size of a lawn chair you wont stick the landing, this isnt hollywood.
I most certainly will be aback and climb this again, I wont bring a rope because I don't think I need one but thats my informed decision about me after I have been there and I would seriously hesitate to take people I don't know up there without a rope unless their mountain resume convinced me they were capable.
NoSubas - Dec 17, 2008 7:22 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Too many peopleI know this area sees considerable traffic, nonetheless I think it takes away from the setting to have large groups of humans in wilderness like the Missions. I do think that it is a high impact to hold a group activity in an area like this....to other humans and the other living things in the mountains.
Saintgrizzly - Dec 17, 2008 10:15 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: Too many peopleYeah, it was smug. Easy to do when dealing with statements like yours. And you weren't supposed to be impressed.
More to the point, what "setting" are you speaking of? A hypothetical wilderness with no one there? The group(s) of people already there? Possibly one or two folks in the solitude of wilderness, angry when others have the same love of nature, and intrude on their personal domain? I do understand the problems of wilderness being "loved to death," and if I lived in the greater Yellowstone area, and was daily faced with that incomparably more humanity than in the Missions, might have an even stronger perspective. But for what it's worth, the GMS consciously limits the size of its outings for the expressed reason of avoiding, as much as possible, any harm to the environment. For example, the club regularly (and often) communicates with GNP officials as to any environmental concerns to be encountered, or to avoid creating any such concerns. Tim and I feel our party was too large (which in this case was the maximum allowable GMS size) for a variety of reasons, but in this instance the least of those reasons has to do with impact on the environment and/or others in the area--with whom we had cordial conversation(s). For us, it was a safety issue. Further outings on Gray Wolf will not have so many in the party.
T Sharp - Dec 18, 2008 11:27 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Too many peopleTo a certain extent I agree with you Vernon, however, I do not think the size of the group became a problem until we headed into unknown terrain. I sincerely believe that we could have retraced the ascent route with no worries, been down in good time and congratulating each other on a fine day. Do I want to go up Gray Wolf with 12 people again?.....depends on who is in the group...I can think of 11 ladies I would like to show this route to. Would I descend the Maverick Couloir with more than 2 people?...not on your life!
Even though our group had 12, there was not an adverse impact on the terrain. In fact, the area was cleaner after we left, for I picked up litter dropped by other careless hikers. Tribal regulations put maximum group size at 15, about the size of an active Boy Scout Troup.
So to say that the group size was the problem is myopic, 4 people descending that couloir would have been exposed to the same hazard, we just increased the factor.
Saintgrizzly - Dec 19, 2008 1:13 am - Voted 10/10
Re: Too many peopleTim, I'm not sure where "myopic" fits in (although, if I can be "smug," I guess your characterization is just as deserving), but didn't we say the same thing? And isn't "...we just increased the [hazard] factor," a safety issue? The problem may be that I erroneously wrote, "For us, it was a safety issue," rather than something along the lines of, "For us, when our large party entered the descent couloir, it became a safety issue," which is what I meant. I think we're going in circles, in complete agreement.
—Vernon
T Sharp - Dec 20, 2008 12:11 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Too many peopleThe myopic comment was meant for NoSubba. For him the root problem was group size, not discipline.
As for the increased factor, ...each person had the same chance of knocking loose a rock, or slipping and falling as the next, so it stands to reason that we only increased the factor by putting more people in that situation. 4 people descending that couloir is just as dangerous as 12, and from a route finding perspective, bottlenecks should be avoided when possible. How is that for circular logic?
Saintgrizzly - Dec 20, 2008 1:55 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: Too many people: Circular logic continued..."Myopic Vernon" says...oops. Sorry for the mis-read.
Question, though: It seems to me that the more people in a couloir the greater the possibility of several individuals being affected by falling objects. Such as a boulder hitting more than one person, or people running into each other while moving rapidly to avoid an oncoming object, or the fact that—to use our party size as an example—12 individuals descending a couloir simply have a mathematically greater chance of things going wrong, with that "wrongness" then heading rapidly down onto more folks below than would be in a party of 4. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that it doesn't seem logical that 4 people descending is just as dangerous as 12. (Not to mention that 12 people descending, if done as safely as possible, is a great deal more time consuming.)
T Sharp - Dec 21, 2008 12:32 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Too many people: Circular logic continued...The "odds" will remain the same statistically speaking. Some of the other things you mention are the increase in factor that I spoke of. Lets say for example, 20 parties of 4 descend the Maverick Couloir, and 1 group has an accident, then the odds are 20:1 that your group of 4 will not have an accident. If one person in that affected party gets injured then the odds are 80:1 that you will not get injured. If you put a group of 12 into that same descent then the odds remain the same because each person still has an 80:1 chance of not to getting hurt.
Looked at a bit differently, the likely hood of the 4th climber in a group of 4 knocking down a rock is the same as the 4th climber in a group of 12 and the results are the same. The difference now is that there are 3 groups of 4 descending at the same time, but the likely hood of the 4th climber in each group of 4 loosening a rock remains the same. The increase in factor is that more people are exposed to the falling rock if the 4th person in the last group loosens the rock. Since it is practically impossible to calculate where a rock will bounce once it has started rolling, each climber below shares the same chance of getting hit by that rock. But really, looked at in that light should the 4th person in the lead group be any less careful than the 4th person in the last group?
The onus is on the trailing climbers to descend extra carefully to avoid the 1 in 80 chance, thus taking extra time. This statistical model plays out with each of the hazards we were exposed to [slipping and falling, or sliding on snow]. Statistics almost seem to defy logic some times, but rarely mislead. The frustrating thing to me is that 11 people were exposed to that chance rather than none.
Cheers;
Tim
Saintgrizzly - Dec 21, 2008 2:07 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: Too many people: Circular logic continued...I see your point, and yet in this world of circular logic I don't see your point. We'll have to discuss over coffee (soon), or this column could develop a life of its own....
Texascanyons - Feb 17, 2009 7:20 pm - Hasn't voted
Some thoughtsSaint Grizzly, thanks for your candid report. I too think you’re being unnecessarily hard on yourself.
Your trip sounds like Into Thin Air Lite. Thankfully everyone made it down safely. I know both Maverick and one of the other climbers who was there that day. I briefly considered going myself; from all accounts I’m glad I didn’t!
Obviously, the disputes and the fragmentation of the party are the kinds of things that happen when people get onto terrain or into conditions in which they aren’t comfortable. In this case it sounds as though the ultimate cause may have been that the ascent was mis-rated in the club bulletin that advertised the climb. Reading your trip report and hearing the accounts of those who were there, the ascent sounds like Class 3 with one Class 5 step (and maybe a bit of Class 4). As someone who has had no climbing instruction, that would have been enough to deter me.
Maverick told me that he was freaked out on that step. He said that if anyone had fallen they would have died. He did not want to descend it. I would have turned around at the base of it -- his mistake, IMO, was that he himself didn’t.
Why he chose to continue, why he opted not only to risk the pitch, but to subvert the unity of the party, usurp your leadership, and gamble on what he didn’t know, he did not say.
Others however must have been sufficiently unnerved by the thought of downclimbing that pitch, to follow him down an unknown route. Did anyone express such reservations on the way up? Did any vote, at the summit, for descending the original route as planned?
The club needs to make sure that each climb is accurately rated in advance, so participants can know what to expect, and make their go/no-go decisions at home instead of on the mountain.
You were with a party of self-determining adults -- I doubt that, in the circumstances, you could have made things turn out differently.
T Sharp - Feb 18, 2009 1:16 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Some thoughtsThanks for commenting on this article. From my understanding of the GMS rating system, I will dispute your assertion that the climb was mis-represented. We listed it as Class [3] Difficult.
High angle scrambling, moderate cliffs, considerable exertion. Rope might be necessary for beginners. Since we screened the people who climbed that day and there was only one beginner, and the rest were seasoned GMS members, it was determined no rope was necessary. Since there were several rest stops on the high angle cliff area, we were able to spot everyone as they progressed, no one would have fallen more that a few feet before coming to a relatively flat landing. Everyone [except for me] would have had a spot for the down climb too.
The comments that I heard from the group were that Gray Wolf was one of the best routes they had ever done, yes it is challenging, but it was not put forth as a walk up, or even an easy scramble.
As a leader, I have never put forth a vote on route choices, but I have changed routes and even abandoned routes because some member was not comfortable with the climbing. In this case nobody came forth to Vernon or I with any indication they were uncomfortable with our chosen route.
It is my understanding that Maverick likes to find alternate descent routes, and has done this on other occasions , if he wants to justify his actions by saying that the route was too scary, and then descending into the unknown that is his business. In my honest opinion, down climbing into a blind couloir that you have not ascended is one of the most irrational choices that one can make. The rest of us would have much rather not had to follow him.
One other thing I would like to point out, there were no disputes, the majority of the group continued to work together to help each other out. The fragmentation of the group occurred because Maverick and a few others did not stick around at the bottom of the couloir to make sure that the rest of us made it out safely. As I mentioned in the article, 3 or 4 fellows [who did make sure everyone got out safely] asked for and were granted permission to forge ahead on the remainder of the descent.
Saintgrizzly - Feb 19, 2009 1:24 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: Some thoughtsTim's response to your post, Texascanyons, just about covers it all—I don't have much to add. The downclimb was most unfortunate, because it gives a sour impression to what was actually a very nice day on a great mountain. Several that were along have since let me know that Gray Wolf was among the best climbs of the summer for them!
The climb has been discussed extensively with Jim Schroeder (President of GMS), Larry Hiller (also on the climb), and Brian Kennedy (in charge of putting together the "Journal"), and there is going to be an article on "Gray Wolf - Lessons Learned" in this year's edition. No finger-pointing in the article, just observations on what went wrong, and may be of benefit to the collective GMS experience.
I agree with Tim completely on the issue where Maverick feared downclimbing the crux, and that a fall would have resulted in death. Not so! It was, indeed, difficult-enough to require concentration, and individuals helping each other, but I was surprised to hear of Maverick's fear, as that was not expressed to either Tim or myself during the actual outing. Tim and I did a great deal of conversing and studying before posting the climb rating in last year's Journal, and post-climb have received agreement from experienced GMS-ers on the climb that our rating was indeed okay.
One suggestion coming to light after the climb is that I did not introduce Tim as the official "climb leader" during the day. All communication in the Journal had been directed at and from myself, and even though Tim was officially listed as co-coordinator, it was an understandable assumption that I would lead the way up, so when Tim took the lead, it was a bit confusing. That lack of communication won't happen again. (We're leading another climb in the Missions this summer, but guess I shouldn't state the mountain here, until the Journal comes out.)
Thanks so much for your comments!!!!
One last thing: who are you? I'm not placing "Texascanyons" as someone I've communicated with in the past. Have we been on GMS outings together? I don't expect you to post your name here, but send me a PM or email if you wish....
Fred Spicker - Feb 20, 2009 10:11 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Some thoughtsSection description in the trip report:
"The second difficulty, just a short scramble above our lunch saddle, is a near-vertical 75' section of blocky climbing in the 5.2 range. The holds for hands and feet are all there but not always obvious, especially to the less experienced climber."
And – "I gave a short safety talk and led the way up this wonderfully exposed pitch."
In a photo caption the 5.2 step is described as "awkward".
So apparently we are talking about awkward, exposed 5.2.
The definition of Class 5 is that it is belayed climbing with the leader placing intermediate protection. This also matches the GMS classification.
Class 3 - especially Glacier Park Class 3 - is scrambling - the first stages of using one's hands and usually involving very little exposure or danger of serious injury in a fall.
There is a huge difference between Class 5.2 and Class 3. In fact, by stating that this section is 5.2, you are not even presenting the possibility that is might be Class 4 – a 5.2 is pretty definite rating indicating that the person doing so is sure that it is well within the Class 5 designation.
I know very few climbers who would confidently downclimb an exposed awkward 5.2 pitch without a belay. Certainly inexperienced climbers would want a rope both up and down.
So, which is correct – the trip report or the Class 3 rating?
T Sharp - Feb 21, 2009 3:07 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Some thoughtsWell Fred;
I was wondering if you were going to chime in on this discussion.
I had heard that you felt the climb had been mis-represented in the GMS Journal.
I will have to reiterate my earlier response that according to the 2008 GMS Journal, "Class III (3) Difficult High angle scrambling, moderate cliffs, considerable exertion. Rope might be necessary for beginners"., in my opinion, is the best classification for this climb. "Class IV (4) Very Difficult Higher angle cliffs, increased exposure. Belaying rope required.", is overplaying the difficulty of the step up out of the saddle. Your assertion that "especially Glacier Park Class 3-is scrambling-the first stages of using one`s hands and usually involving very little exposure or danger of serious injury in a fall." is an incorrect interpretation of the 2008 GMS Climb Classification System. You are describing a class II (2) Moderate.
I believe the error in your assessment of the rating I gave the pitch is that the GMS uses its own rating system, and does not allow for a YDS rating. I view the GMS system as more closely resembling the "Grade" type of rating system, than the "Class" rating system that we find defined in Freedom of the Hills. I graded the pitch based on the hardest move which is a relatively easy mantle. In my opinion if a person can climb a steep ladder then he can climb a low 5. Some beginners might want a belay, but none in the group that we climbed with that day stated they were uncomfortable with the pitch.
Guide book ratings and trip prospectus ratings are by nature ambiguous, and should always be looked on with a jaded eye. As Vernon interviewed the people who were interested in this climb, he made it known that there was a steep section of climbing. This climb was advertised for strong intermediate climbers in good shape. In my opinion anybody fitting that description should be able to manage the route easily. The one and only beginner was a strapping young man of very athletic build, and he had absolutely no difficulty on the disputed section of this climb.
Perhaps you should climb the route and see if you think it requires a belay. I only mention this because you seem to be taking the position that every [even low] 5th class [yds] pitch should be belayed with the leader placing protection. And further that every climb that has a low 5th class move on it should be a class 4 or better. I certainly do not feel that is necessary, or that it would necessarily accurately represent the overall difficulty of a route.
You also seem to be picking apart the words I used to describe the pitch as a way to play "gottcha", I can assure you I could just as easily have written a very bland description of this route. But that is not how I live or climb.
So in my opinion both the trip report and the GMS Class III(3) rating are correct.
Fred Spicker - Feb 21, 2009 9:26 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Some thoughtsYou are correct on at least one point, I think of Glacier Park Class 3 as originally defined by Edwards – though I really don't see that much difference when you look at the verbal descriptions.
Edwards 3:
"Moderate. Small cliffs that may be difficult and steep scree requiring exertion. Little danger of physical injury if careful."
New GMS 3:
Difficult "High angle scrambling, moderate cliffs, considerable exertion. A rope might be necessary for beginners."
GMS does give the option to include a most difficult pitch rating as shown in their example rating on the page:
Going-to-the-Sun Mountain (9,642 feet): West Face Route
Rating: III (4) M M
This route will have an overall rating of Class III with the most difficult pitch being Class 4, a Medium round trip distance and a Medium elevation gain. Each section of this rating system is described below.
Based on this and the description that you give in this article perhaps this route should have been rated III (5).
Based on the description you have written in the article and what Vernon described to me along with what you contend now, I think that your article misrepresents the climb. Particularly:
"a near-vertical 75' section of blocky climbing in the 5.2 range."
This implies 75 feet of Class 5 climbing – not one little move. And you go on to call it "wonderfully exposed" which would cause most people to think that a belaying would be appropriate.
My contention regarding Class 5 is that if the average person will climb the pitch unbelayed then it isn't Class 5.
I do not contend that every climb that has a low Class 5 move should be rated Class 4 or better.
T Sharp - Feb 21, 2009 12:21 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Some thoughtsFred;
You seem to be arguing in circles, one minute contending I underrated the climb, and lured unsuspecting people into danger, then ending by saying I overrated the climb.
I think "High Angle" and "Near Vertical" can mean the same thing.
I also think "Moderate Cliffs" and "Blocky Climbing" can mean the same thing. I think a mantle move is not necessarily difficult, but also not common knowledge among non-climbers, thus it is a learned climbing move. As such it becomes a technique, and hence above a class 4 move. That is why I rated the pitch by its hardest move, an easy if awkward 5.2. It is common practice to rate a pitch by its hardest move, though the entire pitch is not necessarily sustained at that level.
My descriptions in the trip report were designed to convey to the reader that this is not an easy walk up, or even necessarily an easy scramble, but for a competent mountaineer, it is not overly difficult, and does not require a belay. The pitch does give a sense of exposure, because it goes above the cliff cuts of the Gray Wolf Glacier. Please remember we were not taking a bunch of beginners up this climb, and just as a point of reference, GMS member and well respected climber Larry H. agreed with the rating.
You can stick to your guns if you like, but I will stick to mine also.
If you think I have done a disservice to the GMS community, or to this SP community, then so be it. If you want to critique my work and climbing from a computer screen, then so be it. I have freely admitted that I have made mistakes, I just do not think that they were in the classification listed in the Journal, particularly since trip and climbing details are always discussed with the coordinators prior to signing up for a climb.
Fred Spicker - Mar 2, 2009 12:04 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Some thoughtsThe GMS rating system was introduced in the 1988 Journal. Along with the explanation of the system is a list of 32 rated climbs as examples.
The rating system is unchanged since its introduction. Though, for a brief time in the mid-90s, the option of adding YDS Class 5 ratings (5.0 – 5.10) was included.
I have compared the routes that are included on the GMS list which are also included in the Edwards Guide. The rating numbers are the same. Routes rated in the Edwards guide as Class 3 are rated by GMS as III(3). Routes that Edwards calls Class 3 with some Class 4 are rated by GMS as III(4).
An exception is the ER of Cannon which GMS calls III(3) and Edwards says Class 3 with possibly one Class 4 pitch.
What is different is the written description of the Classes 2, 3, & 4.
See the Edwards Guide and GMS website for complete written descriptions.
Edwards Class 1 – Very Easy GMS Class 1 - Easy
Edwards Class 2 - Easy GMS Class 2 – Moderate
Edwards Class 3 – Moderate GMS Class 3 – Difficult
Edwards Class 4 – Difficult GMS Class 4 – Very Difficult
Edwards Class 5 – Severe GMS Class 5 – Severe
Interestingly, Edwards does not recommend a rope for Class 3 while GMS states that a rope might be necessary for beginners.
Note again however, that the ratings given to the same routes have the same numbers. An Edwards Class 3 is also a GMS Class 3.
Why routes are described as harder by the GMS is not explained, but I would not be surprised to find out that a lawyer was involved.
The example GMS III(3) routes are:
Gould WS
Jackson NER
Pollock EC
Clements WR
Rising Wolf SF
Red SF
Cannon ER
Grinnell SWT (Via Overlook Rte.)
Norris SER (Via Triple Divide Peak)
The example GMS III(4) routes are:
Gould NR (Via Gem Glacier)
Going to the Sun WF
Reynolds EC
Cleveland WF
Triple Divide EF (direct)
Allen NR (Snow Moon Basin)
Bearhat NF
Merritt NF
Siyeh SF (Note Edwards calls this 2 & 3 with possible 4)
T Sharp - Mar 5, 2009 12:36 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Some thoughtsThanks Fred for your detailed analysis of GMS and Edwards rating criterion. I think the similarities are remarkable. As I have not climbed in GNP, I have no real frame of reference as to the difficulties of the named peaks and ratings, and I will thus defer to Vernon regarding the relativity of comparison to Gray Wolf. I will however remark about Larry H.s` comment; the rock quality of Gray Wolf is vastly superior to that found in Glacier National Park.
I was under the impression that the GMS rating system was peculiar to GNP, is this a correct assumption? Perhaps the crux of this issue lies in my extrapolation of GMS ratings, as relates to other mountain ranges.
Texascanyons - Feb 17, 2009 7:21 pm - Hasn't voted
OopsYou're T Sharp, not Saint Grizzly -- sorry about that!
lapotka - Aug 12, 2018 12:28 pm - Hasn't voted
5.2, high exposure, several areas where a fall would be fatal or near fatalI just climbed Grey Wolf for the first time yesterday. I was certainly "on route" the whole way. the notch section has probably a thousand feet of air to the north and to the south in most places it is too steep to stop a falling climber form bouncing and tumbling hundreds of feet and probably injuring themselves to the point of not being able to hike out.
The initial descent into the notch involves a V0 or 5.2 move over the steep gully and the initial ascent from the notch has perhaps 35 feet of ledgey 5.2 climbing broken into a few parts, several easy mantels, and high steps. the subsequent zig zag is relitively safe and easy. on this first section if a climber peeled backwards here they would most likely careen off into the abyss. this can most certainly be climbed safely by an experienced climber but we are all lying to ourselves if you call it 5.2 and then say there is no possibility of a death fall. grade it with whatever system you like but if you fall 12 feel in an uncontrolled manner onto a ledge the size of a lawn chair you wont stick the landing, this isnt hollywood.
I most certainly will be aback and climb this again, I wont bring a rope because I don't think I need one but thats my informed decision about me after I have been there and I would seriously hesitate to take people I don't know up there without a rope unless their mountain resume convinced me they were capable.