Little Bear West Ridge Indirect evaluation

[daway8]

There's been a lot of talk and a lot of questions since the recent tragedy on Little Bear West Ridge Indirect. People naturally have concerns following any fatality in the mountains. In the past it was common to have endless speculation and armchair quarterbacking following any accident. Thankfully, people on this forum have mostly come to realize the need to be respectful of those affected by tragedies and thus minimize such speculations. But I continue to hear questions from many sources so I want to offer what I hope is a careful and respectful evaluation of what the recent tragedy can help remind us about climbing challenging routes in the mountains.

After recently re-climbing West Ridge Indirect and assessing the limited information available about the recent tragic accident, this is my best available assessment, pending any greater level of detail that may or may not be released at some point by anyone closely involved in the accident. Sincerest condolences to those involved and their loved ones. Please note that the following assessment is not intended to make any judgement on those involved, but simply to offer the best available information and recommendations so as to minimize the risk of future incidents.

The crux section itself - if you're staying on top of the ridge - is extremely solid. I vigorously tried on my recent climb to see if I could dislodge anything on the ridge at the crux and was unable to get any of those holds to budge. However, if you attempt to bypass the crux (or any other part of the ridge) by dropping below the top of the ridge, be warned that there is plenty of loose rock on the bypasses.

Additionally, as with any route, there is loose rock to be found all along the route to varying degrees. With careful attention, I have more than once done this route without ever knocking loose a single rock - so it is possible. However, I have on other occasions knocked loose some sizeable rocks - so that is also possible. Constant vigilance is essential, especially while on the ridge.

My best guess as to the likely circumstances of the accident - based on the extremely limited data in news reports (which based on many previous accidents, news reports about accidents in the mountains seldom if ever get all the details exactly right) is that the climber was either attempting to bypass the crux (which is not recommended), or was at a different location along the ridge which was mistaken for the crux, and/or the 60mph winds that were mentioned in one article as having hampered helicopter access came into play along with the terrain. But this is pure speculation and the only reason I offer that is to help people as they attempt to assess the risks of this route. If anyone reading this has more complete knowledge of the accident that can be respectfully shared, please do so if that will not violate any privacy concerns. Otherwise, this speculatory paragraph offers people some general concepts to keep in mind in regards to this route.

For the record, it should hopefully go without saying that climbing a narrow ridge that is highly exposed on both sides is not advisable when strong winds are present, nor is it recommended to attempt this route during an active storm (the exact nature of the conditions during the accident are unclear - these are just general statements).

Little Bear is fundamentally a dangerous mountain by any route. The standard Hourglass route has significant rockfall danger and there is almost nothing that can be done to mitigate that risk apart from trying to arrive when no one else is around, and even then people have experienced rockfall sometimes. The West Ridge Indirect route has much less rockfall danger (but there is still risk of rockfall) however, that risk is traded for the risk of extreme exposure. Danger from exposure can be significantly reduced - though not entirely eliminated - by always maintaining 3 points of contact, testing your holds before applying weight, moving with careful deliberation, and staying off the route during times of inclement weather or strong winds.

Others periodically mention the SW Ridge as safer alternative but the final section between South Little Bear and Little Bear also has a lot of exposure for the climber and a lot of risk of knocking rocks down into the Hourglass, plus it's a notably longer route that leaves you on a ridge for a very long time, which means added danger if there is risk of lightning moving in. In summary, Little Bear is a dangerous mountain, period. It's up to the climber to choose which of these sets of risks they're willing to accept.

I'm happy to have respectful discussions about the pluses and minuses of the various routes on Little Bear. I'm saddened that there has been a fatality on West Ridge Indirect but, to be honest, it's unlikely that we've seen the last tragedy on Little Bear - be it the Hourglass, the WRI, or possibly someday the last section on SW Ridge or some other spot - the truth is this is a dangerous peak by any route. If someday there's a post on this forum about me being injured on some route or another on Little Bear - be it WRI or some other - it won't have come as an extreme surprise to me. We engage in a delightful but dangerous hobby and sometimes even people far more capable than me get injured or killed due to circumstances that no one can fully control.

Stay safe. Stay informed. Be careful. Be respectful. Enjoy these wonderful mountains while you're able.

[MGatMileHigh]

Thank you. Really appreciate the assessment

[bdloftin77]

Yes, thanks for the assessment. Very well written, informative, and courteous. There are no "safe" routes on Little Bear.

[gb]

The standard Hourglass route has significant rockfall danger and there is almost nothing that can be done to mitigate that risk apart from trying to arrive when no one else is around, and even then people have experienced rockfall sometimes.

This is the one thing I would disagree with, there is a way to mitigate rockfall risk- by climbing the hourglass in spring with well consolidated snow gluing all those rocks together.
Having climbed all the 14ers in summer conditions, I distinctly remember LB as being one of the harder and scarier ones. But since I also went back and skied all of them in snow conditions, I would also say that LB doesn't even crack the top 10 in terms of difficulty with good snow cover. It's a pretty straightforward mellow day with snow, in all honesty. I've skied it twice, but I wouldn't think of doing it again in the summer.

Anyone considering the goal of climbing all the 14ers as a journey towards developing mountaineering skills, rather than just hiking, should consider learning how to snow climb and climb LB that way. It's by far the safest and IMO, most enjoyable way. It's no different than a Portland climber learning snow to reach Mt Hood, or someone from Seattle deciding to climb Rainier- a different skillset is required.

That's my two cents.

[daway8]

@gb - ah, that's right, there is the snow option. However, friends who have done it in snow have reported falling ice so it's still not a total no risk deal.

Plus that's pretty steep snow that some people aren't going to be comfortable with. When I looked down into the HG on my winter climb up West Ridge Direct my thought was, yikes, that's steep!. Personally I prefer steep rock over steep snow&ice - but that's just personal preference. (It's the steep ice that concerned me most)

Overall conclusion is still that Little Bear has risk on any route and any season - just have to pick your poison...

[MaryinColorado]

Really thorough and well-articulated assessment. Little Bear has been a really hot topic on the .com Facebook page, which has produced some good dialogue but as of late certainly concerns about the accident that occurred. So i have linked a couple folks to your write-up. Very helpful to the 14er community at large. Thank you.

[justiner]

Little Bear is fundamentally a dangerous mountain by any route.

This is basically it, but the culture of 14er hill walking is a tourist one. Many people that have little experience, skill, or fitness go up already having strikes against them. If something like weather or conditions are not in, the chance of an accident goes dramatically up. Doubly so for a mountain that has objective dangers that simply cannot be controlled, like LB. It's in some ways similar to the ski-culture where out-of-towners get waaaay over their heads on some resort run or even in the backcountry. Many make it out with some bruises; others need to be assisted on a sled pulled by ski patrol. We have issues here in Boulder, where the local SAR is very busy rescuing people off even the easiest of flatiron routes.

I feel like when people get into the more difficult routes, there is an idea that they can simply out-study the dangers of the route. There is merit in brushing up on just what where you need to go on the route, esp. for a more complicated route like the WRI, where it's not just "follow the ridge", but library time isn't experience on the rock. Not everyone has a CMC around and culturally again, 14er hikers aren't always one that are going to get into rock climbing as well. But how many people here have found the hardest moves they've ever done on a 14er?

If you browse through an actual rock climbing guidebook -- or even old 14er guide books -- which are NOT made for tourists -- there aren't step-by-step how-tos of the route. There's a general description and maybe a line on a photo/topo. You're supposed to know what you're doing when you're up there, already. That is very different from what you'll find on this site. It's very much a double edged sword. Obviously I don't think daway8 should feel in any way responsible for accidents on a route they've written a guide for and have championed. But we shouldn't be surprised that now many more people are trying the route and a small % of those people are going to run into trouble. I hate to use the word gatekeep, but publishing a route certainly lifts up any gate that may have been there.

[d_baker]

I agree with gb.
If possible, and if interested, folks would do well to learn and develop snow skills.
If not, accept the fact that when dry any particular steep 14er can and will have falling rock or you could fall off rock, loose or solid.
Rock can fall on snow too, but sure can be more fun going up snow than any gully that's dry.

I haven't done LB in summer conditions.
2x, once with good spring snowpack up hourglass, and 2nd time in winter up SW ridge.
Mama Bear to main summit seemed ok, but I could see it being a funnel to hourglass if one were to knock anything loose.

[Eli Boardman]

But how many people here have found the hardest moves they've ever done on a 14er?

If you browse through an actual rock climbing guidebook -- or even old 14er guide books -- which are NOT made for tourists -- there aren't step-by-step how-tos of the route. There's a general description and maybe a line on a photo/topo. You're supposed to know what you're doing when you're up there, already. That is very different from what you'll find on this site. It's very much a double edged sword. Obviously I don't think daway8 should feel in any way responsible for accidents on a route they've written a guide for and have championed. But we shouldn't be surprised that now many more people are trying the route and a small % of those people are going to run into trouble. I hate to use the word gatekeep, but publishing a route certainly lifts up any gate that may have been there.

Yes, this.

The problem with the 14ers is that they are just barely easy enough that you can get away climbing all of them without any real mountianeering skills. Peak lists like the California 14ers, Wyoming 13ers, Washington highest 100 / Bulgers, etc. have a very different culture because there is a clear distinction between hiking and climbing. Of course there are still accidents, but I do think that it is paradoxical that the community seems to believe that ever-more-detailed step-by-step beta will somehow make the 14ers safer as opposed to, say, learning basic ropework and snowclimbing and bushwhacking and navigation and...

The usual response is "people will want to climb them all anyway, they can't be expected to learn all those skills." But the expectations are very different in other places.

I am also reminded of the other recent Little Bear thread asking for advice on how to get ready for scrambling harder. My answer: if you don't want to scramble a scary route, that's totally fine; instead, learn to use a rope, don't just try to get mentally tougher.

The Bonneys (of Wyoming guidebook lore) once said, "The true goal of the expert mountain climber is learning to travel safely in dangerous places." The complete avoidance of risk is impossible, but I'm kind of tired of the CO 14er community turning a blind eye to solutions that would provide a genuine level of greater safety simply because these solutions require an undesirable amount of time to learn.

[ekalina]

This is basically it, but the culture of 14er hill walking is a tourist one.

Your assessment makes sense to me. My suspicion is that people who continue hiking (or climbing) mountains after they complete the 14ers are probably in the minority. On this site, there are 1854 people who have climbed the 58 Colorado 14ers. But only 120 have completed the centennials as currently defined here (not sure if this number might have been reduced by recent lidar updates). That's less than 7% of 14er finishers, despite being more than halfway there once you've finished the 58. Part of the reason for that may be that finishing the centennials is harder and requires mandatory class 5. Another could be that people keep on summiting, but something other than the centennials. But the biggest reason is probably that most people are climbing the 14ers as a "one-and-done" experience (present company excluded). They're not planning to make mountaineering a continuing part of their life after they finish the list. And it is hard to sell rock and snow skills to someone who doesn't ever plan to use them again once they climb 58 mountains.

That said, many experienced people have gotten hurt or killed in the mountains. You can do everything right, or at least make only reasonable choices, and yet still have a bad outcome. Ultimately, I don't think it's on us to gatekeep by limiting published route descriptions or refusing to provide beta. The responsibility to manage risk and make good choices in the mountains ultimately rests with the individual, which is both beautiful and terrible but makes mountaineering what it is. Even when on a team, every person must be able to decide for themselves when the risk has crossed the line, and others must respect this determination ("respect any veto"). I don't think most people who are starting the 14ers as a checklist carefully consider these things.

[justiner]

Ultimately, I don't think it's on us to gatekeep by limiting published route descriptions or refusing to provide beta. The responsibility to manage risk and make good choices in the mountains ultimately rests with the individual, which is both beautiful and terrible but makes mountaineering what it is.

But, what is the audience of a guidebook? (Here, I'm calling 14ers.com "a guidebook"). With expanded route descriptions and photos with lines and arrows, I would contest it's mostly beginners. This style really breaks down when it comes to more technical and advanced routes in my opinion. We can't always IKEA instructions our way through a semi-technical route where there are major consequences if you mess up. Perhaps it would be best to change the style of narrative of such routes to better suite the serious nature of the experience?

Also, just as a critique -- and I've made this one before -- I do think the WRI could use some editing. It needs to be much more straightforward, no matter the style.

[ekalina]

Ultimately, I don't think it's on us to gatekeep by limiting published route descriptions or refusing to provide beta. The responsibility to manage risk and make good choices in the mountains ultimately rests with the individual, which is both beautiful and terrible but makes mountaineering what it is.

But, what is the audience of a guidebook? (Here, I'm calling 14ers.com "a guidebook"). With expanded route descriptions and photos with lines and arrows, I would contest it's mostly beginners. This style really breaks down when it comes to more technical and advanced routes in my opinion. We can't always IKEA instructions our way through a semi-technical route where there are major consequences if you mess up. Perhaps it would be best to change the style of narrative of such routes to better suite the serious nature of the experience?

Also, just as a critique -- and I've made this one before -- I do think the WRI could use some editing. It needs to be much more straightforward, no matter the style.

I don't know that it's for beginners, or mostly beginners. I don't consider myself a beginner and yet I will find and carefully study any information I can about a route, whether it's a 14er, snow climb, rock climb, or bump in the forest. I like to know what I'm getting myself into. Many of my partners appear to do the same. Sometimes I'll read the "guidebook" and determine that a route or peak may be beyond my abilities, and I'll do something else instead. So for every person drawn to the light, I have to think someone else has been (possibly correctly) dissuaded from getting in above their head. Many people get into trouble precisely because they didn't research the route ahead of time - they went with their friend(s) and assumed they would just follow them and have them make all of the decisions for them. How many times has that led to rescues or worse?