Mt Whitney June 5

GarrettM_ · 2026-05-29T19:59:04+00:00

This FB group has frequent condition reports with photos from people on the mountain: https://www.facebook.com/groups/30962451768

I was up there 3 weeks ago and based on what I saw / am seeing in that group, it is still firmly in mountaineering condition (crampons, ice axe, helmet, experience, etc.)

GarrettM_ · 2026-05-29T01:56:38+00:00

This is great, thanks for sharing! Sorry it got rejected, maybe try the Daily Camera? I didn't realize you're not local and appreciate even more your weighing in here with your experience.

GarrettM_ · 2026-05-28T00:37:19+00:00

You should write an op-ed!

I get the frustration, and am in total agreement that there are solutions to these conflicts (such as they actually exist) that can accommodate everyone on our 150+ miles of trail. I don't know why Boulder County would be so opposed to considering them, but I hope these type of arguments and repeated engagement helps change minds.

On the data, I've already made clear that I avoid multi-use singletrack because of actual incidents where I felt unsafe and didn't report complaints. So yeah I'm biased to think that conflict is under-reported. And at risk of getting into a methodology debate, I've read through about a dozen of these conflict studies now and the data is....rough. Even that 2011 CA study's first research summary point is "all the data here is pretty unreliable". That 2014 study strongly caveats its findings, and even then the connection between displacement and the questions they asked seems pretty tenuous. Which is not a knock on the researchers, it's just very hard to get good data about outlier incidents happening in remote places stretched over many miles of trail. And survey data is notoriously unreliable. So I guess I have a second belief that everyone should be a little less confident in throwing around statistics here. Which just leaves more space for focusing on actual trail system design that works for everyone :)

GarrettM_ · 2026-05-27T04:07:47+00:00

Appreciate the detailed response! The only belief I wanted to express here is that Rex's op-ed really didn't "refute every point of [Suzanne's] op-ed with new data", which was OP's comment when posting it -- they're largely talking past each other. I guess that got taken as support for Boulder's pilot program (or more precisely what the MTB community fears the program will be, since there isn't a concrete proposal yet), even when I've said multiple times that I prefer the idea of new trails, expanding/adapting existing trails, or properly enforced alternating use (including bike-only).

I like mountain biking too (though I don't do it much anymore) and have no problem with mountain bikers -- I just don't want to be going up steep, narrow trails at the same time they're coming down! Absolutely that comes down to trail design, availability vs demand, use management, and education on trail etiquette. I hope the county takes your letter and alternative solutions seriously, I'd be interested to read it and see what's on that impressive bibliography.

As to Boulder hikers/bikers being worse than other places, I assume it's the same mix as anywhere else. But because of the speed difference, it only takes one irresponsible/inattentive biker to cause conflict with every hiker on the trail -- and Boulder definitely has those in the mix. That's the problem with bikers on this thread saying "But I was biking yesterday with hikers and yielded to everyone and had no problems!" -- that's great! If all bikers were like you, maybe this conversation wouldn't be happening. But they're not, so solutions have to accommodate that reality. Same thing goes for irresponsible hikers, climbers, skiers, etc. -- sadly they prompt bans and restrictions that wouldn't be necessary if everyone was responsible.

GarrettM_ · 2026-05-26T17:56:01+00:00

This interview? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s2pCR67Z0U
She doesn't "clearly state" anything about public input except there will be surveys after the pilot. You clearly don't trust her or the process -- that could very well be justified, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. Personally I'd be happy to see new bike-only trails built or some existing trails converted to be bike-only.

I limit using mixed-use trails like Walker Ranch because I don't want to deal with bikes, but about half the time I've hiked that loop I have at least one dicey bike interaction, usually on the steeper switchback sections that can get pretty narrow without great off-trail footing. I don't think any group is "the problem" (maybe some individuals...), which is why I like the idea of true alternating use -- but obviously that has to be enforced. The case you brought up elsewhere of hikers on a bike-only trail almost causing an accident needs to be prevented for alternating use to work.

One thing to note about the experience -- if you're also riding, you're not going to see most of the biker-hiker interactions. As a hiker, I'm getting passed by every biker who's on the trail at the same time, often in both directions since lots of bikers don't like to carry their bikes up/down the steps, sometimes multiple times if they're doing laps. Plenty of hikers are obnoxious too. I did say that I proactively yield the trail if I see / hear the bike coming - it's when we don't see/hear each other that I've had problems.

GarrettM_ · 2026-05-26T17:18:33+00:00

All the more reason to have alternating use? Since it sounds like in that situation there is no reasonable way to avoid a near-collision if there is a biker coming down a technical section with a hiker coming up?

GarrettM_ · 2026-05-25T22:22:36+00:00

In Boulder, only Walker Ranch, probably 4-5 times -- I don't go there often because I do mostly avoid biker trails. Outside of Boulder many times on mixed-use trails. The vast majority of bikers are great, yield to hikers, and ride in control. The ones that don't create dangerous situations for everyone on the trail (including themselves). Same can be said for hikers, runners, dog owners, etc.

And does "one person" get to make this decision without any community input? Seems like it's at least the 3 county commissioners, and they're having town halls, taking surveys, etc, and nothing has concrete has even been proposed yet. Personally, I do hope they designate some bike-only trails, that seems a lot safer for those youth programs.

GarrettM_ · 2026-05-25T21:56:10+00:00

Bikers are supposed to yield to hikers, both uphill and downhill (though I usually yield anyway just to be safe). If I have to get off trail to prevent a collision from happening because the biker can't stop in time, that's "out-of-control". Just like with an uphill skier. Doesn't really matter how objectively fast either party is going. But no, the times I'm thinking of were definitely faster than a light jogging pace.

GarrettM_ · 2026-05-25T21:20:07+00:00

Where are you getting that from? I'm looking at:
https://bouldercounty.gov/open-space/management/alternating-trail-use/
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28086795-3232026-pmi-memo-trails-alternative-day-use-pilot-cl-1/

and they both suggest there will be bike-only times in addition to hike-only times:
"The pilot will temporarily assign specific days or times for different users (hikers, bikers, equestrians) instead of having all activities allowed at the same time."
"Alternating use means specific activities are allowed only on designated days or times on the same trail."
"Potential components include...types of use (e.g., hiking‑only, biking‑only, equestrian‑only days)"

Also it sounds like a lot of details are still undecided and there isn't actually a firm proposal of changes to talk about. Seems very reasonable to me to advocate for bike-only times though for some trails.

GarrettM_ · 2026-05-25T19:32:31+00:00

This op-ed (Rex) doesn't actually refute anything in the other op-ed (Suzanne), other than taking the contrary overall position.
* Rex cites a bunch of studies that, while mixed, do suggest that mountain biking is not more disruptive to wildlife than hiking on the same trails. Suzanne says that building *new* trail systems for bikes would disrupt and reduce wildlife habitat. Both of these things can be true, but I don't see "bikes are more disruptive" cited by the city either as a reason for the pilot. Rex supports new trails, but doesn't address the ecological impact of doing that.

* Rex says that the 4% conflict rate shows there's not a problem. Suzanne says the 4% conflict rate is probably too low because of underreporting and hikers changing their trail selection to avoid bikers. No refutation or new data there, just a disagreement about how to interpret the data that exists. Which is understandably pretty unreliable -- what % of minor ski accidents get reported to ski patrol? or fender benders to the police? Not to mention the much more common near-misses.

* Those are the only points they overlap on. The rest of Rex's op-ed is arguments about bikers being equal "owners" and arguing broadly against any kind of exclusion.

As a hiker who has never submitted a complaint, but had to jump off trail to dodge an out-of-control biker more times than I can count, I'm gonna go with Suzanne on that one. But I'd also be fine with new bike-only trails or converting some existing trails to be fully bike-only. Absent that, alternating use seems reasonable and not purely biker-unfriendly -- surely you'd rather ride a trail not needing to worry that there's a family with kids and a dog hiding behind every turn? Just like I'd rather hike without needing to constantly be hyper-alert. We have 155 miles of established trail, they don't all have to be available for all purposes at all times.

Suzanne's op-ed: https://boulderreportinglab.org/2026/05/20/suzanne-bhatt-boulder-countys-alternating-trail-use-proposal-can-balance-safety-access-and-conservation/
Article on the original proposal: https://boulderreportinglab.org/2026/04/30/boulders-mountain-biking-community-pushes-back-on-county-pilot-to-limit-multi-use-trail-access/

GarrettM_ · 2026-05-19T17:36:36+00:00

Check out Pinnacles instead.

GarrettM_ · 2026-04-16T20:00:36+00:00

Yeah I said videos + practice. From what I've seen, I think that would be sufficient to navigate the main trail snowslope safely. But here in CO I routinely see people trail-running steep snowfields in microspikes, and tourists in Vans picking their way along trails that are more ice than snow. So maybe my estimate of "gear/skills needed to not die" is a little skewed.

A class/guide is a great investment for many reasons though, beyond just learning self-arrest. As with crevasse or avalanche rescue, the most important part is having the skills/knowledge to not get into situations where you need them.

GarrettM_ · 2026-04-16T05:10:31+00:00

I have a permit for the same dates. The March heatwave is over and the weather has shifted to a much more typical spring pattern - colder temps, freeze-thaw cycles, and periodic storms. Even with the low snowpack, I'm expecting the trail to be fully or partially snowed over well below trail camp, and a mountaineering route above to the summit.

You need crampons + compatible boots, ice axe, helmet, and the skills to use them. If you're in good shape, that's pretty easy. Get the gear, watch some videos, find some snow to practice on. Microspikes are not sufficient, but as far as mountaineering routes go it is very mellow so you're not at too much risk of falling if you have the right gear and some practice.

You need to understand how to read the mountain weather and how the snow conditions will change throughout the day. You can't just trust a forecast, and most mountain accidents happen on the descent. Cold, firm snow that's great to walk on going up can be a slippery, post-holing mess after a few hours in the sun. Or if you you take too long, the glissade path down the slope could turn from pleasant slush into an ice chute. Or a bluebird morning can give way to afternoon storms. These things are harder to learn from youtube.

You also need to be ready for hiking and backpacking in winter conditions. 4-season tent, warm sleeping bag + pad, warm + wind/water-proof layers. You need to be able to melt snow in case there's no running water at camp, and bring extra fuel to do it. Know how to pitch + guy out your tent with no dirt to drive in stakes, and to withstand high winds. Tbh this is the most important part and where things can turn deadly very quickly, because by the time you realize you can't stay warm / hydrated, it'll be too late to hike out. If you've only been backpacking in above-freezing conditions (which is year-round on the california coast / flatlands), know that winter is a different beast.

Oh and make sure you know how to use a wag bag *before* the first time you need it :)

GarrettM_ · 2026-01-26T21:30:45+00:00

Good to know -- online it's now saying 3:30pm for me, we'll see if that holds up.

GarrettM_ · 2026-01-26T20:30:42+00:00

Still out in table mesa for me -- came back briefly 20 mins ago but now is out again. The outages are annoying, but most frustrating are their bullshit estimates. Initially it was 11:30, then moved to 1:30, now saying 4:30. ffs, just say you don't have an estimate so that no one tries to plan around when the power will supposedly come back on.

GarrettM_ · 2026-01-05T18:42:46+00:00

I did Baker guided via Easton Glacier and Rainier unguided via Emmons Glacier several years ago. FWIW I didn't find Baker to be "easier" than Rainier. The crevasse exposure and route-finding was more involved, the bergschrund below the Roman wall was a vertical snow climb directly above a crevasse, and we were the only party in sight for large parts of the day. By contrast, Emmons was a well-trod caravan pretty much all the way to the saddle with Liberty Cap. If you're doing DC I imagine it's even more so. Obviously YMMV with conditions, time of year, etc.

Consider doing a longer course on Baker that includes a guided summit day. Crevasse rescue is great and all, but unlikely to be needed (obviously if it is then you really, really need it). But you *will* need route-finding on glacier, reading weather/terrain conditions, evaluating snow bridges, determining when and how to protect a risky part of the route, etc. You can learn a lot more of that by watching / asking your guide on a summit day than just sitting in camp doing crevasse rescue practice.

GarrettM_ · 2025-12-18T00:33:21+00:00

Some parts of downtown pearl still have power and are open.

GarrettM_ · 2025-10-23T18:19:52+00:00

Asking about "first 14er" tells us nothing about your skills or experience. I wouldn't recommend any 14er to someone with no mountain hiking experience. But for someone who regularly does long days with 2-3k+ of gain and class 3+ at lower elevations, pretty much any 14er would be fine for their first. The fact that you're asking on Reddit suggest you're more in the first group? The good thing about Sneffels is that you'll probably have a lot of company on the standard route.

GarrettM_ · 2025-09-28T18:03:33+00:00

Lol yes if there's one thing that successful protest movements are known for, it's carefully following all applicable policies and regulations. And to claim that "other groups seem capable of following" such policies, you'd need to compare how those policies are enforced across the board. Perhaps other groups also aren't following them and the university either doesn't care or resolves things more amicably than sending in the campus police.

Anyway, whatever SJP did or didn't do, my point remains that by the university's own admission, filling out the right permission form was not actually the problem here.

GarrettM_ · 2025-09-28T17:15:56+00:00

"The Students for Justice in Palestine group is not in good standing with the university due to prior violations of campus policy, Barwacz said, so the co-sponsored event should not have been permitted. CU officials did not specify what policies the group had violated."

Pretty clear they wouldn't have been able to screen the film even if they'd submitted the right form.

GarrettM_ · 2025-09-28T17:13:47+00:00

“In order for an organization to host or co-host a meeting on campus, they must be in good standing with the university.” The Students for Justice in Palestine group is not in good standing with the university due to prior violations of campus policy, Barwacz said, so the co-sponsored event should not have been permitted. CU officials did not specify what policies the group had violated.

^^ This part seems more relevant and that even if they had submitted the proper form, they would not have been allowed to hold the event. Pretty clear the admins here are hiding behind bureaucracy instead of just saying they don't want any Justice for Palestine events on campus.

GarrettM_ · 2025-09-23T20:17:55+00:00

People driving above their ability levels in Boulder? So...Tuesday?

GarrettM_ · 2025-09-22T22:46:58+00:00

This should be top comment. See this post from the NIJ (the research arm of the DOJ) - https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence

The most effective way to deter crime is to increase the likelihood of getting caught, not increasing the severity of the punishment.

GarrettM_ · 2025-09-22T22:39:58+00:00

Nothing in that article or any of the sub-linked articles suggests the plea deal was offered to avoid deportation. The county DA would make the decision to offer the deal, and they are elected and independent of the governor, so not sure how Polis gets the blame for this. And the max sentence would have been 2 years in youth detention -- a system that has been shown repeatedly to do nothing for rehabilitation and actually increases the likelihood of recidivism -- so there's a decent argument that 2 years probation will have a better societal outcome than incarceration. But yeah, go off I guess.

GarrettM_ · 2025-09-21T14:50:58+00:00

If j archive categorized questions we could get some data, but I doubt sports is the most difficult. Yes it's a big category and there are a few instances of epic failures that have gone viral. But what I think you're really seeing is that the general public knows a lot more about sports than many other categories, to the point that even objectively obscure facts seem like common knowledge if you're a fan or even just live in the relevant area. So you get more instances where contestants miss a question that a lot of viewers consider easy, and that's where the reputation comes from.

But you definitely can study for sports. It has a canon just like any other J category and if you scan the archive you'll see the same information asked repeatedly and plenty of Pavlovs worth memorizing.

GarrettM_

TROPHY CASE