Secret stashes, exploration, solitude, and more

I thought the question was whether to exercise restraint in order to preserve these opportunities for yourself.  Why else would it be repeatedly referred to as a "stash"?

<br><br>Good point. The challenge in a discussion like this is to keep straight the arguments of different people with slightly different points of view. It's easy to get their motivations mixed up. I've done it in this very thread. However, I never used the word "stash" to describe what I'm talking about.<br><br>

For me, since the whole place is mapped, I cannot conjure up the illusion of exploration.  I guess I could leave the topos at home.

<br><br>Maybe you cannot conjure up the illusion. Or maybe you haven't really tried.<br><br>I've done many trips--inspired by topo maps--where I eagerly anticipated what a particular basin or viewpoint or passage would be like. The great trips were characterized by delight in what I discovered.<br><br>If that's still not good enough, you could burn all your guidebooks and topo maps. People have suggested this to me in past discussions on this topic. But this suggestion overlooks the "Rue Rick Steves" effect.<br><br>You know Rick Steves--the famous travel author. There is a charming street in Paris that has been so popularized by his books and videos that it has been nicknamed "Rue Rick Steves". An adventurous traveller could, of course, studiously avoid all information produced by Rick Steves. The traveller could, on their own, rediscover this charming French street. But when they arrive, and find dozens of American tourists packing the cafes and shops, all leafing through dog-eared copies of Steves' books, it kinda spoils the illusion of discovery. The same is true of backcountry skiing. <br>

Yes Lowell, I knew you'd been careful with the terminology, given your attitude towards the phrase "getting the goods". I shouldn't have paraphrased you to make a point that was addressed to the whole group, it was just convenient.<br><br>I do know what you folks are talking about- about the public spirited goal of preserving areas of discovery. I do know that not every nook, cranny and ramp is discernable on a topo so there is some degree of exploration. I was being ornery I suppose.<br><br>It does leave the problem of the criteria of what trips to post. How do you know the place is relatively unknown for instance? Its not so bad for me though, as in winter I do dog-supported Kirkendall-Spring type tours, very flat forest tours that have fallen out of style.<br><br>Yes, you know you have an imminent problem if you head to your favorite stash and find Rick Steves there.<br>

I've been following this discussion with a fair bit of interest.  Finally I see the "Snoqualmie Pass Guidebook" mentioned.<br><br>So here is a guidebook that has essentially disected a great deal of potential routes in a relatively small area.  Some are obvious, some are not obvious at all<br><br>This guidebook embraces the idea of explicitly sharing details on areas that were previously considered "unknown" or "secret".  Yet no one has disparaged it!  I don't ski in the Snoqualmie Pass Area so I don't know what affect it has had.  <br><br>Has it increased BC use? Or simply distributed the people already there?  Both? Neither?  Has it negatively or positively affected the experiences of those of you who do frequent the area?  Particular those of you who consider yourselves explorers?  How many "secret stashes" have been revealed.<br><br>If a written description of a trip took away its sense of adventure, as many of you feel it would, then there would be no sense of adventure in climbing in the PNW.  This is clearly untrue.  I'm of the belief that a book such as the Snoqualmie Pass Guide benefits both the BC community as a whole and each and every other user as well.  Big tours still have a sense of adventure and there will always be undocumented glades, couloirs, shots and faces to be skied if you push yourself a little further from the car.  Any thoughts on this specific example?<br><br>Darin

I have mixed feelings about the Snoqualmie Pass guidebook. While I think it is a good guide, fairly inspirational, and will hopefully encourage more people to explore - it has exposed some areas to more traffic (e.g. Slot couloir - which probably sees a few descents every week compared to maybe a few per year before the guidebook).<br><br>It also describes at least a few of my "secret stashes", and places that I've scoped out as potential descents. For the former, I've seen ski tracks where I never saw any before. For the latter, a lot of the spirit of adventure is lost now that a route is laid out in a guidebook.<br>On the other hand, I suppose it has shown me a few spots I wouldn't have thought to go. Overall, I'd say it has had a negative impact for me (for purely selfish reasons). But it has probably been of benefit to most skiers.<br><br>I've got no problem with people keeping their stashes secret (despite even posting TRs about them, while not revealing location - sometimes the info is still relevant for snow/avy conditions), as I do the same - and I realize this is selfish perhaps, but I don't care. I love exploring new places, but I also like being able to return to easily-accessed spots where I know there will be solitude and fresh tracks.<br><br>I also don't *quite* agree that writing a TR with a vague-but-decipherable location is akin to divulging a "stash". I think that most skiers just wish to have directions handed to them on a plate - but for some of us the mystery is part of the appeal, and if you make it sound good enough, we'll figure out where it is . So I guess either lay it out clearly, or make it *really* vague.<br><br>Someone said maps spoil the illusion of exploration. I don't think they do that much. For me they just make it easier to get a good idea of what areas are worth "exploring for myself". Probably 95% of the Cascades are "unexplored" in the sense that they aren't in a ski guidebook or otherwise well-known. This makes me happy <br>

I'll quickly share a experience about the Snoq Pass guidebook, then I need to get back to work. A few years ago, I got it in my head that it might be possible to do a ski circumnavigation of Chair Peak. No one told me about it, it was before the guide book, just idle moments looking at maps and getting creative. A year later, the guide book came out, and sure enough, it was in there. I never skied it that year, but put it at the top of the list for the following year. I watched the weather, the snowpack and decided to go for it last January. I didn't have a partner, but this was OK - I was confident in my abilities and enjoy touring alone.<br><br>Well, I started climbing up from Source Lake, found a skin track and followed it up, thinking it would save some energy. To my surprise, it led the way all the way around the peak. Was this track guidebook inspired? Who knows. It could have been put in by long time skiers who had done the route before the guidebook. It didn't ruin my experience that day, that's certain, but it did change it.<br><br>I've since mapped out tours of similar complexity near Snoq Pass that are not in the guidebook. One in particular I've been looking at for some time but haven't gotten the chance to do it yet. Maybe soon when the days get longer. I'm thankful it and tours like it aren't in the book. I haven't been doing this that long - 4 years tops - and am a late comer. But I've been thankful that there still are areas that are relatively untouched and permit even a small amount of exploration.<br><br>Like Phil, I have seen a increase in the number of skiers in places I haven't previously seen them near Snoqualmie Pass. It's hard to say whether this is a result of the guidebook or not. Perhaps I'm just more tuned into it now. The book has certainly pointed to places I hadn't thought of skiing in before and for that I'm thankful. And yes, it removes some, but not all, or even most, of the adventure of a big tour. Who knows, perhaps I'm one of those people long time skiers point at complain is ruining their 'stash.'

I haven't sampled the tours in that book broadly or frequently enough to be able to react to Darin's question. I tried a Kendall Stump variant (dropping into Comm Basin - kind of a cool tour) from the book two seasons back and saw no trace of tracks. I was on Mt Catherine recently and it felt a bit like rush hour. Not a very statistically valid sample. Clearly I'm sticking on the milder end of the tours listed (though I like the idea of heading out toward Lemah in the spring, as it looked like great ski potential and Volken's guide somehow makes it seem more do-able). <br><br>What about internet postings? What has caused the surge in use on Arrowhead (at least so I hear, never having been there)? Randomness? MtnPhil's posting to his site a few years ago? Charles' photo gallery? Something else? Are comments from TAY about Catherine being perhaps the best tour for snow conditions in the Snoqualmie area (perpetuate the myth!) a factor in the crowd I saw there?<br><br>Phil - thanks for the intellectual honesty. You're right. I'm perhaps selfish too in the same regard, and I too don't care. This doesn't feel like a truly anti-social sort of selfishness, and it's a nice side-benefit that I'm keeping Matt happier.